YOUR transformation, leader, is not why you were hired. The organizational aim and mission is the
reason, isn’t it? You are supposed to be
able to guide delivery of that mission.
So, what if leaders focused on reframing their sense of
employees in the context of organizational missions? [I know that very often
gets done, but this is a reminder of where our attention and framing might
belong—not on ourselves but on the people who are making the organization go
everyday.
It encourages us to reframe who employees are in our organizations,
what they bring and what they are being managed/allowed to offer to the
organization in service of the mission. This lies at the heart of employee
engagement and engagement lies at the heart of organizational mission delivery.
Gallup has done a great job over the years of tracking
employee engagement.
According
to Gallup’s latest 2013 statistics, nationwide, 30% of employees are Engaged, similar to the 28% who were in
2009. Meanwhile, nearly one in five (18%) workers are Actively Disengaged," while the majority are simply Not Engaged. This is not auspicious for
high-energy, connected mission delivery. [http://www.gallup.com/poll/162062/managers-boast-best-work-engagement.aspx?ref=more]
I’m not going to offer any data in terms of proven
statistics. The following reflects my experience in 20+ years of working in all
kinds of organizations, from religious institutions to international
development organizations to some of the world’s largest companies:
95%: Ninety-five
percent of anyone who will ever work for or with you very much wants to do a
good job. It’s part of our human makeup.
Sometimes the organization is designed for that to be easy, and sometimes it’s
not all that easy to perform well in a system. The engagement or disengagement
of this group depends almost entirely on how they are treated: how they are managed,
included, asked to contribute their strengths, listened to around ideas and
involved in the direction the organization is taking, especially around their
particular areas. This group is a gold mine, if they are recognized as such and
treated that way. Leaders should be asking themselves: What is getting in the way of the
performance that people naturally want to offer?
2+%: Another 2+%
are in the wrong positions in the organization so can’t and don’t perform
well. Some of them used to be in the
right position for them, but perhaps they have outgrown it or the position has
gradually changed over time, so that it is no longer a fit. This group should not
present such a big management issue. The
organizational structure should help them get into the right roles or help them
leave without punishment.]
2+%: The last
small percentage of employees is in some sort of trouble that keeps them from
doing a good job and may even create disturbance in the organizational system.
Maybe they are ill or addicted, dealing with enormous family or emotional
issues, or wounded by something that has happened to them. They can create
havoc. This is where leaders, and the
Human Resources staff, seem to spend most of their employee time.
Organizations tend to set up their policies and structures
for this last 2% group. They manage the entire employee base as if they are
potential criminals or slackers or difficult to deal with.
EVERYTHING depends on what perspective the leadership [and
the organizational system] has about the staff.
Either you see the people who come in the door everyday as incredible
assets with a strong desire to contribute, or…you see them as some sort of
problem to be solved—entitled, lazy, dishonest, disengaged. And when you treat
employees that way, they become disengaged, and eventually, so do you.
Here’s another example of the importance of being able
to reframe reality, to look from a different vantage point, to study different statistics
and see what they tell us.
No comments:
Post a Comment