Employee Engagement: Black Holes and Time Warps

January 9, 2015

Just to come clean, I actually don’t have anything to say about time  warps. So, if you’re one of my three readers who happened to want to  learn about the theoretical conditions necessary for such a thing - you  are out of luck. I’d recommend the following as it’s a good read on exactly that topic.

So, New Year, and a commitment to you, dear reader, for more frequent posts. That’s right - one a week. You. Are. Welcome.

So, what is the subject of this week’s post I hear you sniffle?

It’ll start with a rant.

I am extremely lucky in that I get to attend, and oftentimes speak,  at a host of meetings in any given year. Some of them are technical in  nature, some are not. For those meetings that are not, there are always a  couple of presentations, panels, or even whole sessions devoted to  ‘corporate culture’. What usually sets me off, and that typically  results in a snarky tweet, is when someone speaks about culture as if it’s something you can directly manipulate.

The five usual readers of this are rolling their eyes at this point, knowing how much I love to wallow in the pedant(ic) (a river somewhere, I’m sure).

Again though, I’m going to exhort that the words have a meaning, and  the meaning is powerful, so let’s use them correctly (as opposed to  saying things that sound good, but have no real meaning, or cannot be  used in a meaningful way).

Culture is not something you can directly  manipulate. It is a higher order effect that may change, as you alter  something else. You can’t, in my opinion, speak about culture, or  culture change, with any credibility, unless you actually speak about  your role or work in manipulating the things that can (and ideally did)  alter an organization’s culture. Which, in my mind, include but are not  limited to: the people at your organization, the work they are doing,  and how they interact with each other. All of these things will be a  blend of intrinsic and extrinsic factors, coupled with tools and  physical space. Changing these things will change culture. It’s also  amazing if you can connect your intervention(s) to outcomes that cleanly  demonstrate cultural change (and I acknowledge that this is very  difficult).

So, assuming you’ve made it this far, you’re likely asking yourself -  where do Black Holes come into this, and what’s this about Employee  Engagement? Well, Employee Engagement is just the same kind of higher  order effect as culture. The same levers that influence culture,  influence engagement. And, as for black holes - take a look at the  following artistic impression, and then meet me below.

See the stuff shooting out of the top? According to the press release:  “Also shown is an outflowing jet of energetic particles, believed to be  powered by the black hole’s spin.” The energetic particles are the  higher order effect, and to change them, you’d need to do something to  the interior processes of the gravitational event.

Of course the analogy is not perfect, but the visual serves me as a  remainder of the importance of focusing my energies (pun intended) on  the correct lever(s) when making, and subsequently speaking, about  change.

Oh, and the connection to Lunch Roulette? It is such a lever for  affecting cultural change … just wanted to throw that in there too. Let us know if you’d like to learn more.

Thanks for listening,

DT

Sex and Serendipity

January 30, 2015

Earlier this week, on January 28th to be precise, a friend sent me a note excitedly letting me know that on that day, in 1754, Horace Walpole used the word ‘serendipity’ for, apparently, the first time in the history of the English language.

Accompanying this article was the following little nugget attributed to Julius Comroe:

“Serendipity is looking in a haystack for a needle and discovering a farmer’s daughter.”

Wowser.

Maybe my mind’s in the gutter, but that seemed like a saucy outcome  that Dr. Comroe was alluding to: Our needle searcher much to their  surprise, instead of the needle they’d been lusting after, had found the  farmer’s daughter instead. Sexual hilarity ensues …

Or, maybe, Dr. Comroe actually meant something like this:

“Serendipity is looking in a haystack for a needle and finding a sewing kit”

I know boooring … perhaps a little more accurately connected to the  concept of serendipity though, at least in the way I’ve been thinking  about it recently

My marvelous friend, the one who’d sent me the original note, then suggested the following:

“Perhaps she (the farmer’s daughter in a haystack) too was once  looking for a needle and found hanging out in the haystack much better  than the sewing life that sent her to the haystack in the first place.  Together, the man and woman originally sent to a haystack to find a  needle realize that the utopia in which they’ve been living is actually a  dystopia.  It is in the haystack that they first discover free will and  abandon the search for the needle forever!”

On that note, I think we’re done.

Thanks for listening,

DT

Why the Org. Chart May Not Cut it Anymore

January 23, 2015

Editors Note: This is our first guest post, and I’m thrilled to  welcome Megha Pandit Rao and Alexandra Hughes. As so much of what we’ve  spoken about in some of our earlier posts here relates to Employee  Engagement, we put our heads together and had a think about some of the  failings of the org. chart.

Why the Org Chart May Not Cut it Anymore January 14, 2015

Structure has a profound effect on employee behaviors, attitudes, and  engagement, all of which are inextricably linked to customer  satisfaction. So with more than 70 percent of American workers not engaged or actively disengaged in their work, it’s a wonder more companies aren’t examining their structure and asking, “Is this really working”?

For many, the answer is, it isn’t.

The traditional organizational structure of most for-profit companies  – the one that involves a litany of org charts – is increasingly  outdated. Companies with an overly matrixed or hierarchical structure  are often unable to compete with the agility and flexibility afforded to  organizations opting for a less traditional structure.

An alternative to a hierarchical model is one that embraces  self-governance to some degree, meaning employees have greater control  over their roles, and utilize models such as John Kotter’s Accelerate system.  In a variety of instances, organizations that have shifted to this  approach have seen a parallel rise in a variety of key performance  indicators, such as higher levels of innovation, employee loyalty, and  customer satisfaction. They’ve also experienced lower levels of misconduct and stronger overall financial performance. One recent example made popular by the New York Times is that of the Valve Corporation,  a private computer software company of about 300 employees. Valve  operates with a completely “boss-less” structure and an estimated net  worth of $2.5 billion.

Ultimately, high-functioning organizations that take steps towards  greater strategic agility and self-governance, and less hierarchy, can  and do see increases in engagement, productivity, and profit.

So what can “super structures” gain from adopting a less controlled,  more self-governing structure? And what are the aspects of the less  traditional model that contribute to an organization’s success? In our  reading, research and experiences, we suggest five areas in which less  traditional models excel, and from which traditional organizations can  really learn:

1. Realizing the business value of personal projects. Giving  employees room to develop and pursue personal passion projects that are  relevant to their employers’ business can and do lead to new and  innovative products and ideas. The transition from skunk works project  to sustainable product that drives business value is arguably more  challenging when the idea emerges from deep within the organization.  A  more dynamic organizational structure ensures continual churn, and a  clearer line of sight to ‘the surface’.

2. Shedding layers of rules. Put simply, the larger an organization  gets, the more complex it becomes. Yet, an abundance of rules can make  employees feel like they’re working for a bureaucratic taskmaster, not a  revolutionary company. Fewer rules across the board – from hiring to  submitting an expense report – will help to increase transparency, embed  autonomy, and breed dexterity.

3. Hiring outside the box and celebrating individuality. Smaller,  loosely-governed companies are often more open to hiring unconventional  candidates that don’t fit the mold. In fact, many prefer candidates who  are smart but unskilled, knowing that they have the capability to learn  as they go and still be an asset to the organization. The  high-functioning organization of the 21st Century is a continually  learning entity. Hierarchical structures do not prohibit this, but they  naturally invite siloed learning. 

4. Understanding that failure might be an option. Maybe it’s because  so many of today’s start-ups fail that there is a certain level of  acceptance with this, but acceptance of failures lessens the burden to  be perfect and ensures that employees aren’t afraid to innovate at the  risk of not succeeding. Having a non-traditional organizational  structure allows you to diversify risk, and tolerate failures in a way  that avoids catastrophe for the whole.

5. Asking why and why not. Simon Sinek started with Why – to get to  the heart of purpose, in a way that frames everything we each do. That  is hugely powerful. If we align on the greater ‘why’ of the organization  and of our roles, wouldn’t we naturally become more efficient as a  result of that shared understanding and focus? Similarly, the ‘why not’  can be just as critical. If employees aren’t able to question the things  that are happening around them, they can’t be the best organizational  citizens. We suggest that this should include the very structure within  which they find themselves working. For the health and future of the  company, leaders should empower employees to question whether there are  better/faster/safer/more effective ways of doing each and everything  they face. 

All of this sounds complex. And, it is. Not every company can embrace  all of these tenets, and hierarchies are typically ill-suited to handle  complexity unless employees are infallible, and typically that’s not  the case.

Often the first step is a small one, like eliminating paper-laden  approval processes. Wherever you begin, remember that those org  chart-driven structures just don’t cut it anymore.

Thanks for listening,

AH, DT, and MPR

About the authors:

Alexandra Hughes: Alexandra Hughes, MPS, has a decade of experience  in health communications, social marketing and behavioral science,  advising government agencies, non-profits, and Fortune 100 companies on  issues ranging from breast cancer and childhood obesity, to vaccine  hesitancy and reproductive health. She provides counsel for some of  Ogilvy Washington’s key clients, including the Centers for Disease  Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the U.S.  Department of Health and Human Services, and Merck & Co., Inc.  Alexandra holds a Master’s degree in Public Relations and Corporate Communications from Georgetown University.

Megha Pandit Rao: Megha is an organization development and human  capital specialist with experience across financial and professional  services, healthcare, hospitality, restaurant services, luxury brands,  and nonprofit and government agencies. Her previous work included  redeveloping an organization’s recruitment, selection, training, and  performance management systems. Her current role with MSLGROUP involves  creating targeted, engaging and effective internal communications that  empower employees to be their best selves at work each day.  Megha holds a Master’s degree in Industrial and Organizational Psychology from New York University.

House Hunters, Curiosity, … and the Future of Work?

January 16, 2015

Fine. I admit it. I really like the HGTV ‘reality show’ House Hunters. Whatever. Judge me all you will.

I. Don’t. Care.

Let’s be honest, you probably don’t care either, except it’s the unfortunate backdrop to this week’s post.

One of the reasons something like Lunch Roulette appeals to me is  because I’m curious. I get to meet random people, chat with them and,  inevitably something of mutual interest will come up. I’ve discovered  this is helped along, immeasurably, by actively listening, and then  thinking about how what the person has told me ‘sits’ with the things I  am interested in and looking to more fully explore.

I reckon being curious is a good part of being engaged just generally  but that’s quite a bold conjecture that I haven’t formally explored.  Hey ho, I am getting off topic.

So, I hear you squeak, how do these two themes of reality place-based television and curiosity collide?

Well … I was watching, um, House Hunters recently, a riveting episode  set in St. Louis. When, in one of the montage scenes, I saw the House  Hunter working on a manuscript entitled ‘Virtual Work’. Just a quick  snippet, but enough to pique my interest.

As someone who is interested in ‘The Future of Work’ (as ridiculous  as that sounds), I found this person online, including their CV, and  began poking through their academic work. This included really  interesting gems such as ‘A Taxonomy of Virtual Work’ and ‘The gamification of work’. How exciting, and an unexpected intelectually enriching consequence of my reality TV indulgence.

So, really, I guess it doesn’t matter what you’re doing, whether it’s Lunch Roulette or House Hunters - engaging in it with your Eyes Wide Open, and Your Brain Turned On, is going to stand you in good stead.

Thanks for listening,

DT