Introduction
Currently, it seems like many people have one foot on the metaphorical shore of their current job and the other in a boat, looking for the next employment opportunity. As a result, it feels like these individuals are not fully committed to the work that needs to get done. Often, they do the bare essentials of the job, but not much more. And for leaders, who are trying to implement a combination of strategic and operational changes, this makes things complicated and complex, all at the same time.
So, how do we create a work environment where people want to join the company and stay with the company through the metaphorical “thick and thin”? In essence, how do we build commitment? The answers to these two questions are not quick or easy. Nevertheless, they are quite important.
Knowledge And Relationships
First, we need to step back and look at the history of work and jobs. In the past, the majority of key information about a job was passed down from older employees to younger employees. It was done through a combination of an oral tradition and role modeling. Clarity was created based on learning from others over time. At a basic level, people learned how to do their job by being around other people who were doing their job.
Furthermore, in the past, there were no manuals that tried to explain everything in the world of work, and systems were loosely adhered to, or constantly being adapted by those who were doing the work on a day to day basis. Thus, the value of long term employees was considered mission critical to organizational success. They carried the knowledge and perspective to solve major and minor operational problems. These individuals also had built a network of relationships over time so that if they could not solve a problem, they would at least knew who to turn to in order to find a solution or an important piece of information.
Yet, starting in the 1990’s, a focus on systems and systems management started to take place. Defining a system and managing a system so it was more efficient and, to a degree, more effective, became more important than who was doing the job. Knowledge about how to do a job was defined in manuals and through charts and graphs. Metrics and key performance indicators (KPIs) determined whether or not someone or a team was doing the job correctly. The oral tradition of building clarity and the importance of role modeling by fellow employees became secondary if not tertiary as the company sought to be successful. As a result, adherence to the system was more important than functioning well as a team.
The Foundation Of Commitment
Currently, we are now living and working in an age where long term employees are not the norm. Constant turnover is a perpetual problem. Therefore, the focus on systems and systems management has become a line of continuity through the world of strategic and operational change. Again, on one level, systems have become more important than people.
Still, I am reminded of something Margaret Wheatley wrote many years, “People commit to people before they commit to a plan.” The primary bond at work, and the source plus foundation for an employees’ depth of commitment and level of engagement takes place at the relationship level more than at the systems level. In essence, people work for people and are committed to “their people,” more than they are committed to executing within a system or to system.
From my perspective, the old world of work was not perfect. It came with many problems and difficulties, especially when it came to change at either the strategic or operational levels. However, employees were committed and as a result loyal, i.e. they were willing to follow the path to becoming a “long timer,” because they were committed to their team. Metaphorically speaking, their team was “their tribe.” And as a result, these tribal relationships were important and vital to individual and group success. They also helped to reduce certain levels of work related stress. From the experience of working alongside long term employees, new employees learned that maintaining tribal relationships was more important than maintaining a systems approach to operational success or any level of organizational change. From their perspective, alignment was with the team or tribe more than to a system or form of systems’ management.
A Dynamic Interplay
So, with all of this in mind, we find ourselves as a leader in a liminal space, i.e. an uncertain transition between where we’ve been and where we need to go in order to be successful. At a fundamental level, we are caught between a world of long term employees passing on key information via an oral tradition and role modeling, i.e. tribal knowledge and tribal relationships, to a new world where systems and systems management are important due to the perpetual turnover of key people and the complexity of managing within a highly volatile market environment. So, what’s a leader to do if they want to build commitment and the capacity to adapt within the work environment?
First, we need to embrace the “Genius of the AND” more than the “Tyranny of the OR.” As Jim Collins and Jerry Porras in their book, Built To Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies (HarperBusiness, 1994) wrote, “.. a key aspect of highly visionary companies: They do not oppress themselves with what we call the “Tyranny of the OR” - the rationale view that cannot easily accept paradox, that cannot live with two seemingly contradictory forces or ideas at the same time. The “Tyranny of the OR” pushes people to believe that things must be either A OR B, but not both.” For example, many leaders think one can only do change or stability, be bold or conservative, or deliver high quality or low cost.
As Collins and Porras continue, “Instead of being oppressed by the “Tyranny of the OR,” highly visionary companies liberate themselves with the “Genius of the AND” - the ability to embrace both extremes of a number of dimensions at the same time. Instead of choosing between A OR B, they figure out a way to have both A AND B.” With this perspective, leaders can focus on purpose and profit, maintaining a fixed core ideology and implementing vigorous change, or maintaining a conservative core and creating opportunistic experimentation.
Finally, Collins and Porras note, “We’re not talking about mere balance here. ‘Balance’ implies going to the midpoint, fifty-fifty, half and half. It seeks to do very well in the short-term and very well in the long-term. A visionary company doesn’t simply balance between idealism and profitability; it seeks to be highly idealistic and highly profitable.”
Build And Maintain Cooperative Relationships
To embrace the “Genius Of The AND,” leaders will first need to have an understanding about the importance of relationships and their impact on strategy and day to day operations. In particular, they must engage in a relationship building strategy in combination with building a common language about systems and systems management, particularly around the role of project management. With this perspective in mind, they can embrace complexity, which is inherent in the Genius of the AND.
However, the default choice of many leaders during complexity is to focus on task oriented behaviors rather than relationship building and maintaining behaviors. This choice of focusing on tasks translates into a focus on functional trust rather than emotional trust. And the outcome is task oriented conflicts, e.g. “I don’t agree on how this is being done,” which is then transformed into relationship conflicts, e.g. “You don’t like me.”
Nevertheless, there is a small group of leaders, who are successful in the midst of complexity. They have chosen to engage in building and maintaining cooperative relationships. Their success comes down to two key factors. The first and obvious one is the health of their social relationships. One element of this choice is that these leaders check in with others, not about getting something done as much as “how are you holding up with getting things done?”. And the outcome of this choice is that people do not feel abandoned in the work place. They also feel like someone is looking out for them or “has their back.” This choice to care about them as an individual rather than a position creates a bond that generates loyalty and commitment over time.
To be continued On Tuesday.
No comments:
Post a Comment