Ever Since our friends at the Gallup organization came up with their famous Q12 many professionals in the consulting world have become obsessed with further identifying and refining the "drivers" of engagement and practices focused on improving overall levels of engagement have become the rage in businesses across the country.

The Q12 as you may already know asks 12 questions that purportedly measure strong feelings of employee engagement. There is reportedly a strong correlation between high scores on the Q12 and superior job performance.

Based on their initial work in the area of employee engagement Gallup, using an extraordinary amount of data, determined that Nationally, in 2005, engaged employees made up 28% of the work force globally, not-engaged employees made up 54%, and actively disengaged made up 17%.  With numbers like these it is no wonder Gallup has gone on to develop an enormously successful human resource consulting program.

I believe the Gallup organization through their research and others doing similar research have done the world of business a tremendous favor by uncovering this provocative information. What I am not as certain of is whether the conclusions they arrived at are equally valuable or valid.

My own suspicion is that what Gallup has determined is that only 28% of the players in our national workforce have found work and workplaces that are both truly satisfying for them. This may be as much a function of commitment as it is a response to external factors. The people in this fraction of the workforce just keep moving and/or communicating until they find what they are seeking, possibly following some vision in the manner expressed by George Bernard Shaw

"Reasonable men adapt to the world. Unreasonable men adapt the world to themselves. That's why all progress depends on unreasonable men."

And I am betting it didn't always feel good, until it did!

It just may be that the majority (54%) of our workforce has “settled” for something less than satisfying and 17% of the workforce is simply pissed off for any number of reasons, perhaps even resentful about having to work at all.

Cause and effect are tricky questions. When it comes to people and their behavior of one thing I am fairly certain, relying on strong feelings, emotions, for anything, is like laying a foundation in quick sand. The divorce rate in our country may be more indicative of this belief than any piece of research I could site. Everyone  becomes engaged when they “feel” like they are in love. Then they marry and the eventual strength of a marriage comes from the way we behave when we no longer “feel” like we are in love. Will we remain engaged? Can we operate from the commitments we have made and have that be sufficient to sustain engagement? Here is an example from my own life of what I am pointing to here:

I don't do yard work. It's not that I am lazy, if the task is going to the grocery store, picking up the dry cleaning, taking out the trash, driving the truck to the recycling center, just let me know it needs to be done and I am on it.. Loading the dishwasher and scrubbing pans after dinner are actually two things I find relaxing. I just don't do yard work; not mowing the lawn yard work, that's fun. No, I mean yard work, like planting flowers, spreading compost, pruning and worst of all, weeding! But I do love my wife and she really enjoys having an attractive yard and works hard at it. As an expression of how much I respect her commitment to the yard we have created a game. She’ll want something done in the yard and I ask if what she wants is “yard work. She of course then says “no” and I say, “Well all right then, I’ll do it.” This works for us and especially because it gives us time together. Except for weeding! We have an unwritten rule that under no circumstances will I engage in weeding.

A week or so ago my wife set out to do some weeding in the rhododendron garden and her back cramped up. I knew she was counting on getting this bit of weeding done so from that place where I am profoundly related to my wife I said, “You know I do not do weeding but I am going to make an exception this week because of your short term disability.” I got down on my hands and knees and for two hours pulled weeds and did a presentable job. Did I have a strong feeling of connection to the task after all? Hardly! In fact I have no more interest now or connection to weeding than I ever did. Yet, because of the commitments my wife and I share this was a satisfying experience. It just didn’t feel like it!

• Where are you waiting for the right feeling before taking action?
• What factors about your working environment have you been putting up with rather than making a request or saying what's on your mind?
• Take a look at where you are working and what you are doing right now? Is this it for you? If not are you willing to take action to get it to be or find another place that will?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

For the past fifteen years I have greeted business leaders clamoring for more leadership and accountability in their organizations with this challenge, “What are you willing to give up? The question is almost always met first with silence followed by a familiar response, “What exactly do you mean by give up? Then the fun begins.

I have been adamant for some time that employees want to give their employers the best they have to offer and employers behaviors and practices often serve to constrain this from happening. Many employees are not going to give their best for conventional rewards and they certainly are not going to give it for nothing, but they will give it for free. I know this without data to back it up, I just get it in my bones and I bet you do too.

“Thankfully, there are those writers who do like data and they often do the research to make the connection between “hunch” and reality. Every so often a new voice bursts on the management/leadership development scene with an unconventional take on familiar themes and they can back it up with facts and then many of us shout “I knew it!” No author may be as "right now" in this regard as Daniel Pink, author of 'Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us.

This is not going to be my review of Drive, there are already plenty in circulation, in fact if you are interested I’ll send you right to one written by Andrew O’Connell that appeared in Harvard Business Review earlier this year. Better yet, if you’d like a pretty compelling synopsis of the book by the author himself I recommend setting aside ten minutes or so to watch the video animate created by RSA.org. I am betting that after you watch this piece you’ll buy the book if you haven’t already.

Without the benefit of the research presented in ‘Drive’ my company stumbled on some of Daniel Pink’s fundamental new truth through direct experience back in the mid-1990s while working with our local independent telephone company. (You may recall the 1990s as a time when telephone companies were still relevant!) During that period we were working with this company to bring about a shift in thinking, a transition from seeing the world though the eyes of a regulated utility to seeing the world through the eyes of a player in a competitive marketplace for telephonic services; a tall order at the very least.

Among the many changes that the telephone company was working to bring about at that time was to turn Customer Service from a pure expense center into another of the company’s revenue generating locations. The idea; pretty simple really, since the company could count on a regular inflow of contacts from customers with issues or questions why not address each of these contacts as also a sales opportunity. Calling features were in vogue then, Call Waiting, Three Way Calling etc. and each was available, for a price.

To motivate the customer service representatives who would be involved in making this change the company put in place a financial incentive program knowing full well that the employees would jump at the chance for additional income…they didn’t, and management was confused and perhaps not surprisingly they were angered as well. “Everyone” knew this was a great idea, why couldn’t these employees just buy in and get with the program and "hey, don’t forget the money", the money was a good thing.

We came on the scene about three months after this program had been put in place and the situation was getting very tense. The managers who had first proposed this program had gone on record promising their seniors a big payback and it was not showing up. Knowing that their idea was sound the managers determined that if they could not entice desired behavior with incentive they might as well initiate some negative consequences for not “playing ball.” And so they did and suddenly the union representing the service reps got very involved and then no one was having any fun.

When asked if we had any possible remedy to offer the first of our questions set the stage for a dramatic shift in perspective. We asked, “What made you think that people who had been basically performing the same or similar functions for on average twenty years were suddenly going to care about making more money?” The answer was pretty simple and understandable. The managers assumed that the customer service reps were motivated by the same things that motivated them. Within a short period of time we were able to determine that time off, an afternoon to spend on family issues, a simple recognition luncheon, a book of car wash coupons, or just the time to spend with a customer without worrying about who was next in the queue, all these were more meaningful to the service reps than a chance to make more money. All of these motivators were virtually free but they did mean management would have to change their behaviors, and they did.

It is now fifteen years later. Daniel Pink tells us that autonomy, mastery and purpose are the motivators that matter to much of the current workforce in the conceptual age. You might think this would be good news for many employers. Not necessarily so. Providing these incentives means management will need to give up control of employees’ time and direction to some degree. For many employers, they would still rather let go of money than they would control.

• Where are you struggling to gain employees' 'buy in' but you have failed to offer them any freedom? What are you prepared to give up?
• Can you envision your role without any supervisory or directive aspect? What could you do with the time freed up?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

"On November 15, 1990, in response to mounting evidence that air pollution contributes to water pollution, Congress amended the Clean Air Act and included provisions that established research and reporting requirements related to the deposition of hazardous air pollutants to the "Great Waters." The waterbodies designated by these provisions are the Great Lakes, Lake Champlain, Chesapeake Bay, and certain other coastal waters (identified by their designation as sites in the National Estuarine Research Reserve System or the National Estuary Program)"

In July, 2009 Puget Sound  (Lots of great pictures!) was added to this list of treasured and protected waterbodies.

On February 3.2010 the Seattle Post Globe ran this headline...

Puget Sound getting sicker; Obama budget slashes money for Sound cleanup by 60%.

You may be  thinking that somehow you got on a link to the wrong site, let me reassure you. This is The Heart of Engagement and yes, in part the title of this post reflects current ecological conditions in and around the Puget Sound, Washington State.The other part of this week's title, (...Why Would You Ever Care?) may seem a bit sarcastic, however, that interpretation would really miss my intention here. What I am attempting is to make an experiential connection between those things in our lives that we are aware of yet do not respond to. Often we do not take action merely on the basis of awareness, because regardless of the conceptual awareness, we are not engaged; we have not chosen to be responsible for the matter at hand. There are many issues I could have mentioned instead of the health of Puget Sound

• The well being of the people of New Orleans post Katrina
• The current Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico
• The AIDS epidemic in Africa
• The unemployment level in America
• Name your favorite issue suffering a lack of engagement

About a week ago I was sitting in the basement of the local union hall in Anacortes, WA along with a number of other local citizens. This gathering was a monthly event sponsored by supporters of one of our two major political parties. Topics range from campaign finance reform to immigration concerns to the pluses and minuses of the recently passed health care legislation. On that particular evening we were hosting Kevin Ranker, local state senator who was doing an update for us on progress being made to recover some of the Puget Sound Restoration funds cut by the Federal Administration as mentioned in the article from the Seattle Post Globe.

As Kevin spoke that evening it gradually became clear that the Puget Sound dying is not such a simple issue to deal with. Here's a shot from another angle  of what may be the most recognizable feature in the Puget Sound area, Mt. Ranier.

 Oops, this does change the frame a bit does it not? Rather than simply see the situation through the lens of "Puget Sound is Dying, ain't it awful and somebody ought to do something cuz it's beautiful", we can now see that we/humans are reliant on this body of water and are also helping it die. The manner in which we have/are employing this resource whether it be ferrying business commuters to work or baseball fans to the Mariners games at Safeco Field, loading and unloading cargoes from Japan. China and Southeast Asia or serving as home port for an Alaskan fishing fleet is not very likely to change immediately in response to the article from February in the Seattle Post and Globe. There are too many seemingly independent interests in play. People freeze up in the face of this amount of complexity.

This takes us to the Heart of Engagement, in my view: Choice. No matter what the situation, it is possible to engage. The key is to be able to stand in the face of the complexity, free of judgments of right and wrong, good or bad, should or shouldn't etc.and take action effectively.

...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In recent years I have developed a keen interest in what might be identified as the "elements of a resilient business community." I live in an area of the country, rural/coastal northwest Washington, where the economy is dominated by small business. Truthfully most of the United States is in a similar position as the director of any Chamber of Commerce will readily affirm.

Unlike metropolitan areas where often there are larger enterprises serving to establish "economic thrust," in areas like ours the success of small businesses seem to me to be almost entirely dependent on the support of customers or clients in our local area.

With this much obvious interdependency, local business owners still express constant concern for their visibility and viability when faced with price advantages offered by on-line shopping or "big box" stores a reasonable drive away. Unfortunately I find that all too often these merchants do their fretting in private and hope for the benevolence of local citizens.

The sort of tensions I am describing seem quite normal to me. What I question is whether it is possible to break the cycle of rugged self-reliance on the part of our local business owners without throwing the "baby out with the bath water." As a business owner myself for the past twenty years I share the interest I see in other owners to pursue their own path and express themselves through a commercial venture, sort of test themselves in the open market of perceived value. However, is it possible to begin to harness the aggregate business wisdom in a given local area in service of all participants? Why merely depend on patronizing each others' businesses, why not also be available to advise, coach,critique and most importantly hold each other to account for actions committed to?

So I am asking for your input, and the input of those you know and trust. If you were tasked with developing a total framework that would reliably support a resilient, sustainable commercial community in a defined local area,

• What elements would you make sure were present in the local political environment?
• What measurements and statistics would you use to describe healthy businesses?
• What education, books, programs would you want to have available as part of a basic business owner's curriculum?
• How might you explain to local business owners the possible benefits of taking a collaborative approach to business development?

Personally I am intrigued by the idea of being able to spend time with other business owners reflecting on lessons learned while considering the wisdom gleaned from  newly published works like Jeff Hayzlett's "The Mirror Test" or Michael Gerber's classic, The E Myth. Or, having one of my local colleagues share with me the latest technical application that has proven profitable to install.

What would you recommend/suggest/insist be included in the development of a "community" approach such as the one I am pursuing?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

OK, first, this post is waaaay too long. I'll do better next time. Promise!

Employee Engagement**, as measured using the Q12 was first introduced as the now popular TRUTH by the Gallup organization back in late 1998, early 1999. Many of us first heard of the Q12 while reading "First Break All the Rules" by Marcus Buckingham whenever we may have read it, in my case 2001.

But I am not writing about the Q12 today, only  marking its introduction into our conceptual framework. I am also noting that it seems that once Gallup told the world what it had found much of the western business culture suddenly realized that there was some connection between an employee’s level of engagement and their performance/productivity.

Like so many other things in business (that most pragmatic of worlds) we came to care about this subject when we were in enough pain and not much sooner. Honestly, if you look back in the literature you’ll find references to engagement, albeit called by other names,  as early as the 1920’s in the writings of Mary Parker Follett.

 Unfortunately, as has often been the case before with newly promoted management ideas the general drift of the studies and literature that followed the introduction of the Q12 has reinforced the fundamental power differential that has come to be accepted in the workplace. Basically, employer/management has the power and employees don’t. And so it goes with codifications of the so called “drivers” of engagement such as those presented to us by The Conference Board.

Based on a distillation of several intensive studies by varying sources TCB in 2006 presented its clients with the following common drivers of employee engagement:

•  Trust and integrity – how well managers communicate and ‘walk the talk’.
• Nature of the job –Is it mentally stimulating day-to-day?
•  Line of sight between employee performance and company performance – Does the employee understand how their work contributes to the company’s performance?
• Career Growth opportunities –Are there future opportunities for growth?
•  Pride about the company – How much self-esteem does the employee feel by being associated with their company?
•  Coworkers/team members – significantly influence one’s level of engagement Employee development –
• Is the company making an effort to develop the employee’s skills?
•  Relationship with one’s manager – Does the employee value his or her relationship with his or her manager?

To all this “driver” stuff, and similar notions that employers are responsible for employee engagement  I say Poop! They are postured in an allegorical tale of good and evil with all the appropriate archetypes. Consider that what we have all been talking about (and I suspect sincerely) is how to resolve the seeming paradox that only arises when we accept that there is an irresolvable conflict between the interest of workers and employers. Again, I say Poop! The non-resolvability is in the eye of the beholder.

If there is any responsibility to be assigned it must include all parties in equal measure. If nothing else I say that that what we have struggled with since the introduction of the Q12 is to find who is at fault for the awful statistics provided us by Gallup as output from their famous survey. They found:

Engaged employees- 29%
Not engaged employees – 56%
Disengaged employees -15%

If you have any sense of pride as an employer these numbers were bound to drive you crazy (and launch 1000 consulting practices!) and if as an employee you had previously bought into your role of worker as victim you now had evidence for the case you pleaded daily in the break room. Humbug to all of this, the pride and the prejudice!

Yes, as employers we do have environmental factors affecting employee engagement within our control that we are well advised to attend to. Failing to heed the research has it its own consequences and they are well deserved.

At the same time, Yes, as employees maybe we have our own set of guidelines for maintaining our own engagement. I propose to you the following Employee Guidelines for Staying Engaged, developed by me without survey instruments or statistical analysis.  (Myers-Briggs type INFP) Are these rules? The question makes no sense to an INFP!

Mike's Employee Guidelines for Staying Engaged         

#1 Whoever sees it first gets to do it. This is the principle of Responsibility. There is no
validity to the statement "That's not my job." until you say so.

#2 Nobody likes anybody's ideas better than there own. This is the principle of
Participation. Everyone wants to play, they will play your game if they can play their way, let
them.

#3 Organizational life will provide as much nonsense as you can deal with, do not add
to the confusion. This is the principle of Persistence. There is normally nothing and no one
assigned to your success at work.  At the same time, there is nothing and no one assigned to
make sure you do not succeed. Whining is not a good substitute for performance and it adds to
the mess.  Hang in there and don't take it personally.

#4 Do not confuse your beliefs with the truth, it makes you stupid and an annoyance to
other people. This is the principle of Perspective. Your "point of view" is valid, as "your point of
view." As "the point" it makes life at work really crummy.

#5 When you have no control you must communicate. When you do not communicate,
apologize.  When someone fails to communicate with you, forgive. This is the principle of
Traveling Light. The work is hard enough all by itself, don't collect or create baggage.

#6 Nothing is more valuable to your performance than your working relationships, respect and maintain them.This is the principle of Managing Mutual Understanding. Never, never, never leave your motive or your intent up to someone's imagination.  If you really need to communicate pick up the phone or walk down the hall. Communication is a process, not a transaction to be trusted to email.

#7 Give up your right to say, "I told you so!"  This is
the principle of Partnership. If you don't say it when you first see it, forget it, and get to work.

#8 "We are all, as individuals, in over our heads. That's just the way it is." The greatest barrier we all face to performance and productivity in our organizations is our unwillingness to ask for help.

#9 “Be ready to walk away today” Given the overall uncertainty of the times in which we live and the general condition of nothing being guaranteed you do yourself enormous honor by being prepared to leave your current employment at a moment’s notice. This means to handle your personal finances with the primary objectives of protecting your confidence and ensuring the comfort of your family. Enough said?

# 10 Remember. . .  If you can't laugh at yourself, someone else will always be
happy to do it for you."  Embrace the interdependence; it is the path to both success
and satisfaction.

Of course there are 10, there are always 10 when it comes to Guidelines,Rules, etc.!)

If you can't remember these 10 Guidelines write this on the back of your hand..."Life First, Business Second, May The Force Be With You"--Pam Slim

 Thank you for your attention!

**My thanks to David Zinger , Steve Roesler , Abhishek and Patricia Soldati for addressing this dilemma months before me.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

"How little the public realizes what a girl must go through before she finally appears before the spotlight that is thrown upon the stage."

Florenz Ziegfeld

Now and then, if we are fortunate, there may be presented to us the opportunity to see a master as they perform. Less often and even more fortunate are those occasions when we have a chance to work with a master as they pursue their craft. Last Friday in Seattle at the Green Lake Theater, along with nine other lucky travelers I worked with a master.

I became acquainted with Kimberly Davis back in 2007 shortly after the publication of my first book, THRIVE. Through a series of serendipitous occurrences, me moving near to where she was living in Seattle, she and her husband moving to the Dallas/Fort Worth area and me securing a contract with an agency in Fort Worth, we did wind up working on a project together in the spring and summer of 2008. It was my project and I asked Kimberly to assist and she actually ended up as the co-creator of a wonderful initiative we put together for "at risk" youth in the Fort Worth school district. Unfortunately the funding for that program was canceled shortly after our pilot phase. At that point, sadly,my working relationship with Kimberly ended. I returned to Washington to begin a new phase of my professional life and Kimberly, well she didn't miss a beat.

Shortly after our project in Fort Worth was canceled I started receiving "newsletters from Kimberly letting me know about her knew venture, On Stage Leadership.  The name is probably a dead giveaway, yes it is leadership development wrapped inside the trappings of theater. But rather than give away any further details I'll just tell you that the experience was one I'll draw upon for years to come.

From the time I began receiving Kimberly's newsletters I knew I wanted to participate in her program. Our brief experience working together in Fort Worth had let me know that she is a rare and special talent. While she did a marvelous job assisting me in co-creating the Texas project I knew there was "her work" and I had hoped I would some day get to see her in her element.

Is there such a thing as "ridiculous authenticity?" If there is then Kimberly Davis is guilty of this character surplus. There is of course her theatrical training and I am sure she would be the first to admit to being a "drama queen" but in a way that is so engaging you just want more of whatever that is oozing from her being.

The tag line on the Onstage Leadership logo says "Get Real, Get Real Results" and I cannot think of anything I would like managers (who let's face it we are all hoping will be leaders) to get more than REAL. On Friday that is what we worked on, getting real. On one hand it is sad that being REAL with each other is so challenging and on the other it was literally awesome to see this group of managers awaken to the possibility of power emanating from vulnerability. I could just see shoulders relaxing and tension draining from the faces of my fellow participants as one by one they came to the realization that what others wanted from them was not perfection, it was their humanity, something that over years of organizational life they had learned to keep in check, lest their emotions get the best of them.

During the course of our workshop last Friday Kimberly asked us some very tough questions:

• Is your passion buried or near the surface?
• Can you recall having said something to someone that made a difference?
• Do you know the difference between your purpose and your tactics?
• Who is counting on your for leadership?

Throughout the day we had multiple occasions to reflect on this last question, sort of a self assessment of customer satisfaction. We were all getting square with ourselves on whether we were honoring our positions (manager) or honoring the opportunity it presents us with (leadership) and getting clear that an "either or answer" is not satisfactory. Our organizations grant us our "managerness" and our followers grant us our leadership.

Somewhere during the course of the day I was reminded of something I know that I know. People come to work each day hoping for the opportunity to make a contribution and to be in some way recognized for making it. I say hoping because it is generally not at all clear that an employer is looking for anything more from us than simply doing what is asked. We all know that , day in and day out, simply doing what is expected is not worthy of the time of our lives. When we encounter someone, a leader, a regular human being clear about their purpose and willing to allow others to play at the top of their game we naturally gravitate to that opportunity. We will move obstacles to be near someone who values and validates our contribution. To do that for others, a contribution in itself we as managers must realize we are on stage all the time. The spotlight is a harsh critic, it is also a doorway for us being fully realized as human beings while serving as organizational archetypes.

• What have you said to someone reporting to you that you know made a lasting impression? Consider that it may have been something not positive.
• Who is counting on you for leadership?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link