The Heart of Engagement : Leadership Development, Management Education, Retreat Facilitation & Executive Coaching : Mike Cook : AMJ Group

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

Back in the early 1990’s, when I was getting my company off the ground, the focus of our work was execution. We didn’t call it that; we called it implementation but whatever word we would eventually use the basic idea was to dramatically improve a client’s ability to get done what they intended. When our assignments were complete we often noted that not only could the clients reliably do what they set out to do, the people who worked there were also inspired, looking forward to the next project and openly proud of their work. Generally this state of being was a long way from where the group was when we arrived.

‘Execution’ is also the name of a still very highly regarded book by Larry Bossidy and Ram Charan. In the introduction to the book the authors state unequivocally that focusing on the discipline and practices of execution is the surest way to cause your business to survive in difficult times. Remember this was 2002, post 9/11 and everyone was thinking times were tough! In their words, “Any business leader, at any company or any level, needs to master the discipline of execution.” The authors also say that, “Leading for execution is not rocket science.”

From my reading of execution and my own experience I have a couple of questions:

•  If execution is really not rocket science and my experience indicates that an execution focus produces the conditions for engagement why isn’t this book a handbook for creating a culture of engagement?  
• Why do the authors define execution as a systematic process of rigorously discussing hows and whats, questioning, tenaciously following through, and ensuring accountability, say it is stronger than culture and then go on the refer to “cultures of execution?”

Maybe because in 2002 they were distinguishing a set of pre-conditions for engagement, not only inventing some new management method or technology?

Here’s an example of a systematic process of rigorously questioning that has become pretty familiar to anyone working in the arena of employee engagement:

• Do you know what is expected of you at work?
• Do you have the materials and equipment you need to do your work right?
•  At work, do you have the opportunity to do what you do best every day?
•  In the last seven days, have you received recognition or praise for doing good work?
• Does your supervisor, or someone at work, seem to care about you as a person?
• Is there someone at work who encourages your development?
• At work, do your opinions seem to count?
• Does the mission/purpose of your company make you feel your job is important?
• Are your associates (fellow employees) committed to doing quality work?
• Do you have a best friend at work?
•  In the last six months, has someone at work talked to you about your progress?
• In the last year, have you had opportunities at work to learn and grow?

I am guessing that about three questions into this list you recognized these as the now well known Gallup Q12.

So here’s what I am thinking and you see what you think. Engagement and Execution are first cousins, maybe even siblings. These 12 questions or any others like them without the process to bring them alive and keep in existence the environment they intend is an exercise in futility. People go to work to produce results not post scores on an engagement survey. If work and the experience of working are meaningful, engagement will be a ripe possibility. I trust people in the presence of the possibility to make the choice to engage.

•  What makes you think you need some fancy tools to measure engagement when what you may be better off doing is focusing on execution? Try playing for keeps and see how that goes.