4 Traits of an Engaging Organization
In these days of economic turmoil, there is a growing gap between successful organizations and those that are on the slow path to failure.
There seems to be a huge difference in the kinds of employment experiences these organizations offer, as well. It’s a virtuous circle, or “runaway” as Seth Godin calls it, as successful companies engage their employees, get better results, recruit better employees, engage them even more, get even better results, etc. The troubled companies? It’s a circle too (or spiral), but not quite so virtuous.
When we’re considering employment opportunities, it’s important that we ask how we can recognize the good companies. There’s a bit of “greener grass” when you look at any potential employer, but what really makes the difference? Here’s my list.
Real leadership
Topping the list of desired traits in an engaging employer is a leader… a real leader. Leadership can take many forms, and at first glance, many business heads look the part and they certainly have the title. Figuring out if they can actually drive engagement and excitement is something altogether different than appearance or title, though. Jim Collins defines a leader really well in Good to Great. He calls it ”Level 5 Leadership,” and these leaders distinguish themselves through a combination of Humility and Will. I can’t do his full description justice, but my takeaway is that Leaders often put their ego in check as they make choices that are for the good of the company. I’d suggest there’s a simple test: Does your potential leader work on things that create results today and tomorrow or do they work for some distant future? The former makes them look good and feel good. The latter serves the organization more than themselves.
A healthy relationship with ideas
A healthy relationship would mean a conversation takes place… ideas would not be met with a response based on how it’s different than the conclusions that exist already. Are ideas examined or are they disputed? Are external ideas a distraction from the agenda or an opportunity to get better? Ideas need a meritocracy, not a pass-fail response. An engaging environment gives ideas a fair chance.
A reliance on their employees
Speaking of meritocracy, what’s the relationship with employees? I’ve yet to see a business that doesn’t say some version of “Our people are our greatest asset.” It’s come to the point that it’s now meaningless to say it. As with so many concepts, there is often a gulf between word and deed. I think this is most easily seen in the nature of the delegation. Are employees simply researchers for the boss’s agenda or are they asked to help find the direction? The creation of an engaging environment is one where the employees are empowered to pursue and develop the direction even when the boss isn’t around. In the unhealthy ones, the work happens when the spotlight is on, but it dies away when the boss’s attention is elsewhere.
As an off-shoot of this kind of orientation, I find I’ve got a hyper-sensitve response to job ads. When I read a description of an opportunity, I almost immediately classify it as an employer looking for labour or an employer looking for thoughtfulness. I’m sure I shouldn’t be so quick to judge so as to keep options open, but I suspect I’m saving a lot of wasted time, too.
A progressive business model
Another book with some fantastic concepts about successful, engaging businesses is Jeff Jarvis’ What Would Google Do? In it, he presents this gem: “There’s an inverse relationship between control and trust.” This is the foundation of some really exciting businesses. Google, of course, and Zappos, the online shoe-seller, are a couple examples of organizations where the leadership of the organization has ceded significant discretion and decision-making power to the individuals that are doing the work… in some cases suppliers and partners. If the organization is designed in an elegant, thoughtful way, letting go of control puts you in the centre of something infinitely more valuable. A business model that thrives on openness and transparency is also a lot more sustainable and, of course, engaging for employees. This one’s perhaps a bit more subjective to read, but in a conversation with people at the top of the hierarchy, are the gripping the steering wheel or looking for ways to hand over the keys?
I’m sure there’s many other essential elements important to a healthy employer. This is just the list that comes to mind for me. I invite you to share what makes a good employer for you in the comments.
Well Nevin, you’re really pushing a few of my buttons with these last couple of posts that you’ve put up! I had to read this last one on leadership a few times as I’ve run a gamut of emotions since encountering it earlier today. At first I was quite irritated by this blog post for some reason but I have come to appreciate it more with several reads.
First of all, I do believe that leadership does matter. I’ve been in the workforce for about 20 years now, working for various companies in both the private and public sectors and in various levels of responsibility from management to the lowliest of grunts. In all that time, I don’t believe that I’ve ever come across a patent “formula” for an effective leader. There are just too many variables — from the state of the industry that an organization is operating in to the make up (experience, education, expectations) of the members of the organization’s work teams. What works in some organizations and some contexts will be completely and utterly in-effective in others.
Secondly, my previous thought leads me to some irritation towards your assertion that companies such as Google are a great model for all to follow. I believe that, given the complexities invovled in both industries and organizations, it is overly simplistic to be looking to the Googles of the world for a one “true” model of leadership. Google is the current flavour of the day just as Microsoft was several years ago as was GE. No one is saying much that is positive about MS and GE these days (does anyone even give the books of Jack Welch a second look these days?!). Also, Google has a near monopoly on Internet search and advertising. When an organization has a monopoly (or even a near monopoly) on anything (whether it was earned or not), it is ultimately relatively easy to look brilliant (and for the leadership to take a lot of personal credit for success that is actually largely not of their own making). I’ve seen this personally in a couple of my jobs. Thus, it is potentially misleading and dangerous for any organization to look to a company like Google for too much inspiration. An organization needs to deeply understand its “make up” — the industry it is in, its current strenghts and weaknesses, its history, etc… — in order to determine what is the most appropriate leadership model and leaders for it.
Thirdly, what makes effective leadership is a very subjective thing. I don’t believe for one second that what you call “true leadership” can be exactingly and scientifically defined and put into what I’ll refer to as a leadership ‘algorithm’ that can be easily and effectively replicated from organization to organization — not only because of the second point I made about organizational and industry complexity but also because the effectiveness of any leadership is highly dependent upon what the followers are like. What are the attitudes and needs of the followers? What culture do the followers come from? Are they even willing to follow? I think in the points that you make you are once again guilty of bringing forth the perspective of a highly educated, upper middle class, North American individual who is seeking elightenment and self-actualization via work/career. As such, your needs for leadership and views towards it will be quite different from people of other backgrounds. For instance, please take a minute to consider how people from a Confuscist society such as China or Japan might view the points that you made in your blog post regarding what is important in a leader. I suspect that there would be quite a bit of disagreement. Not everyone, in every industry, in ever organization is looking for autonomy and input.
Finally, it is also important to consider — especially for those of us that work within larger organizations — that individual leadership can be a very fleeting thing in that, let’s say a CEO, has somewhat limited ability to lead given that he or she is operating within and existing bureaucratic system with rules and controls in place. Add an environment with a collective agreement in place and you have even more limitations and controls on behaviour. Here’s quote from Nicholas Carr’s book “The Shallows” that I believe is quite pertinent here as it references the impact of such bureaucratic systems and Taylorism as practiced by many larger organizations:
“Before Frederick Taylor introduced his system of scientific management, the individual laborer, drawing on his training, knowledge, and experience, would make his own decisions about how he did his work. He would write his own script. After Taylor, the laborer began following a script written by someone else. The machine operator was not expected to understand how the script was constructed or the reasoning behind it; he was simply expected to obey it. The messiness that comes with individual autonomy was cleaned up, and the factory as a whole became more efficient, its output more predictable. Industry prospered. What was lost along with the messiness was personal initiative, creativity, and whim. Conscious craft turned into unconscious routine.”
I’m not advocating for this position, I’m just stating here that this is generally the state of the art today and is likely not to change as Taylorism, with its focus on measurement and standardization in both manufacturing and service industries is not going away. Indeed, Google is the current king of Taylorist type philosophy — it attempts to measure everything that it does with extreme detail. Thus, I believe that there is a leadership paradox with respect to Google that needs to be explored a bit further. Why are its leaders and its management system characterized as so revolutionary when we know that this company is a monopoly and works with a Taylorist philosophy that is the antithesis of what is being preached as so effective with respect to organizing and engaging its people? Something just does not add up for me.
I’d love to see Larry Page from Google transported to the CEO of a mining company with a really strong union. Would he still be considered such a revolutionary and successful leader? I really, truly wonder….
Thanks so much for your insightful comments Chris. You’re adding wonderful depth and thoughtfulness to this blog.
I love what you’ve written. I think though I have a different picture of what I think it’s like to work at Google.
I don’t think I know enough about the leadership style inside of Google to engage in a detailed debate, but there is an elusive business model/orientation that I will continue to try put my finger on. It’s this notion of how deeply decision-making ability is delegated and expected. It’s not for everyone. It’s not even for everyone in a progressive organization. Some people simply want to follow clear guidelines. Not me, though, and I suspect not you.
Another organizational example I’ve read about is Southwest, where their core mantra is something like “We are THE low cost air fare provider.” This simple statement (and an expectation of individual responsibility) empowers employees to take control, to use discretion and make choices for the organization; my wishlist for an employer includes sharing power, not hoarding it. I think it might actually best be described as anti-Taylorism. I don’t want someone to give me a detailed workflow. It kills the opportunity to do something unexpected and infinitely more valuable.
I use Google as an example because I think they actually have an anti-Taylorist philosphy for their employees that have built and are maintaining their monopoly position. Their metrics and their ability to capture really minute feedback is phenomenal, but I don’t think they’re tracking or defining their employee’s every move with the same level of scrutiny. Perhaps this is more of a feeling than an evidence-based, but I think they’re making a distinction between the measurement of their products and the measurement of their performers. They couldn’t get new and innovative products if it was all by script.
I recognize that the post does not capture the ideal traits of an organization for everyone. There are plenty of people that want detailed descriptions of what to do and when to do it. I’m presuming the readers of this blog aren’t looking for a “job,” but meaningful, challenging opportunities to make a difference. While organizational constraints may limit a particular position, I think we should give ourselves permission to not accept it for our own careers.
I have no doubt Larry Page couldn’t perform in a “rank and file” industry. Nor can I. We should pursue (or in Larry’s case, create) the kind of organization that asks for more.