Can Being Challenged Be a Source of Engagement?

woman runningWhen it comes to conditions that promote engagement how much does facing a challenge play a part? If it does is it the challenge being faced or the individual being challenged that makes the difference.?

If the statistics from the Gallup organization are to be believed (and why wouldn't they be?) only 27% of our national workforce reports being fully engaged with the work they are doing everyday. I am less concerned with what this statistic means as far as productivity being lost than I am with the implications it has for the presence of passion, creativity and initiative, full engagement with the work at hand and a concern for the success of the whole enterprise. In other words that people have work to do that they feel is really worthy of the time of their lives.

The statistic cited certainly does not mean that the rest of the folks, those either less than engaged or even worse unengaged, don't have enough to do. Actually the reality seems to be quite the opposite as companies continue to rigorously maintain headcount at near absolute minimums and for exempt workers the  work weeks continue to leak well beyond 40 hours and include portions of weekends as an assumption by many employers. The question it seems to beg is whether simply having a lot to do is a challenge that engages?

In my own work for the past 20 years I'd have to say that rarely have I encountered a management team that understands what it takes to keep the majority or their workforce at or near full engagement. They certainly know the results that need to be produced and they of course know how to offer significant rewards and consequences to keep the results flowing. However, the idea of focusing on engagement as a source of results still remains unexplored territory and I think mainly because managers are trained to focus on actions or behaviors not conditions. This is an unfortunate carry over from our industrial period and much of the work that was done on time/motion studies.

In 2008 Geoff Colvin, Senior Editor at Fortune magazine published 'Talent is Overrated: What Really Separates World Class Performers from Everybody Else, a book that is still selling briskly. Colvin's fundamental premise is that while top performers are talented they also work very deliberately and intently on being the very best in their chosen field. Honestly, and he has data to back it up, these world-class types simply out practice the rest of their competition both in hours and focus. What Colvin's writing suggests is that there are truly few among us willing to go through the rigors of what it takes to become outstanding performers. This I think would echo a basic belief held by the majority of managers in our country, hence the rationale for many of the draconian management practices many of us have encountered.

I am of course interested in the performance of outstanding individuals, however,  I am passionate about exceptional organizations. So what does a study of top individual performers and the challenges they set out for themselves have to do with organizational performance? Colvin does get into this question a bit, but not enough to satisfy me. For my own part I believe that whether consciously or not people are motivated to find something that challenges them to be the very best they can be and also to be part of something greater than themselves.

As I continue my own study of engagement, I want to suggest that having top talent choose you as a manager or your place of work as their own does have something to do with knowing that yours is an environment that challenges people to be their very best, not just work hard on what the organization needs to have done. It also has to do with having people see that there is in your place of employment an opportunity to be part of something worthwhile that is larger than themselves. This does not just happen or at least as a manager or employer you cannot to afford to believe that it will. There is as much deliberate practice in producing a highly engaged workforce as there is in producing outstanding individual performance.

(If you have any interest in the topic of performance I'd definitely recommend reading the book, it is both enjoyable and informative but you may want to start by checking out his article in Fortune which summarizes his argument).

Viewing Employee Development as an Expendable Item

budget cutsAll across the American business community 2010 budget processes are well underway. Unfortunately in many cases it is likely that training and development is taking a beating as a line item. What makes an employer think that when times get tough they can cut or underfund their employee development budget and not have to account for the cost in terms of ability to execute and levels of engagement?

I am not sure how you'd answer this question but I'll give you my view; the training or development that was cut from the proposed or even the approved budget was considered non-strategic and luxurious to begin with, something that was affordable at one point but is no longer. This reminds me of the "stay-cations" everybody was taking this year and and other similar changes people have been making in the wake of the continuing economic downturn. I guess the kids really didn't have to go to camp after all, it was simply affordable.  Employee Development cannot be seen in this same light.

There is a pretty important difference here, vacations were always luxuries, at least the kind that involved travel and resorts. Cutting back on your training and development investments when the going gets tough signals

  1. A surrender to the short term
  2. An indication that this type of investment is non-essential
  3. Future training or development opportunities your employees have been seeking or looking forward are always going to be subject to cancellation

As far as expensive vacations go I can understand that sort of thinking. When it comes to having my organization in a state of readiness to be at the top of our game, I am sure it is not that optional. Your employees are either your most valuable asset or they are not. Their ability to perform is either always of critical importance or it never is.

Beyond these fundamental questions there are other issues that are related and demand continuous attention. It is always going to be important to keep in mind that a certain portion of your work force (likely those that are essential) may have many options as far as places of employment. You can certainly expect some churn among this group as other companies tempt them away with more rewarding financial packages. What you don't want to be doing is giving them reason to be looking elsewhere by cutting back on their opportunities to develop professionally.

As for the rest of your work force, they will not be as readily on the move. Since they are not, there is even more need to keep continually adding to their knowledge base, skill sets, and exposure to ideas  and experiences. Otherwise they are being asked to deliver in the face of new challenges using recycled ideas and thinking available in the closed space of your own organization.

As a development professional maybe it seems like my thinking is aimed at feathering my own bed. That is a cynical perspective. The expenses associated with the maintenance of a strategic workforce are indeed among the largest an organization faces. It may seem that with all the basic expense associated with the workforce that cutting back on development and training is small by comparison, and it is. However, the savings usually associated with this type of thinking leaves out the costs of insufficient levels of performance and in some cases replacement of key resources, a far greater expense in the long run,.

You may not be comfortable with the intensity of my message or the suggestion that follows, but you'd be well advised to listen well to the words of Gary Hamel, currently recognized by the Wall Street Journal as the leading expert on business strategy. Much of his recent work describes the development he sees needed at all levels of an organization in order to remain any competitive advantage. Reading what he has to say you'll realize that he is talking about your development as well.

So what would I recommend? Honestly,  and without hesitation, I'd cut back executive compensation before I touched the training and development budgets. I'd make the same recommendation if I was one of the executives facing these choices. There is a lot of business to be done after this recession is finally fully understood.

 

Engaging with Engagement

Welcome, both to you and to me. Today marks the beginning of a new phase of my life. This is the first entry into this dialogue that I plan to host, and I am more than excited. I am by trade and experience what would traditionally be called a consultant. Personally, I have never felt that name suited, I see myself as more of a catalyst. But that gets funny looks when you put it on a business card.

Engagement is my game. More accurately, "THE HEART of ENGAGEMENT", which for me is less about knowing something for certain and more about establishing a dialogue. The point is to be continually searching for, and then asking the questions that concern what it takes to create and sustain a working environment that fosters engagement. I believe the the power to get things done organizationally, and to produce results, is a function of engagement and engagement alone. A claim like this deserves some further dialogue and maybe even some evidence along the way. My intention with these posts is to provide just that; and I sincerely hope that you will add to the conversation as we go along.

First perhaps a little definition. These days the word engagement gets tossed around so much you'd think we were talking about empowerment!  In a short time, the word has almost become meaningless or so broadly defined, as to have no power when used. I prefer a definition I found in my Webster's several years back; association by choice.  So whatever factors you choose to use to define engagement, you are welcome to. My frame of reference will always be seeking the factors that contribute to working environments and working relationships that are characterized as associations by choice.  There are many questions such as:

  • What has an employee make the initial choice to join a particular workplace?
  • How does a company's leadership demonstrate continuously that it has chosen an employee?
  • How does an employee know that their employer has really chosen them for the long haul?
  • How does a company behave that has an authentic belief that its' employees are really its' capabilities?

You are certainly welcome to use your own criteria for defining engagement, and to share that with me as well. I'd welcome that opportunity, but be mindful this is not a debate. So, don't send me a "better definition" as I plan to continue using mine. 

My attention is on distinguishing and managing the factors, aspects, dimensions, whatever, that end up with people being and working somewhere as a matter of choice - and staying in that place for only so long as that is true.