- Home
- Leader/Manager Skills
- Motivating Employees
- Cultures of Disengagement
Cultures of Disengagement
- By Mitch McCrimmon
- Published December 15, 2009
- Motivating Employees
-
Rating:




Mitch McCrimmon
Mitch McCrimmon, Ph.D has over 30 years experience in executive assessment and coaching. For a completely fresh look at leadership, see Burn! 7 Leadership Myths in Ashes, 2006, or visit http://www.leadersdirect.com
Engaged employees feel a strong sense of ownership, not just motivation to do a good job. Frederick Herzberg noted that the same employees who complain about working in a dirty, noisy, poorly lit factory enjoy working on their own cars in precisely the same conditions. His concept of “motivational factors” amount to a feeling of ownership. Some employees own their jobs, but how many feel much ownership for the business as a whole?
Organizations disengage employees because managers hog the lion's share of ownership. They ask employees for information and delegate execution but reserve interesting work for their own attention. Employees are expected to meet their targets, not help do their manager’s job. To address this problem, we need to see how managers define their roles.
The Manager’s Identity
Most
employees and managers identify with their ability to analyze, make
decisions and generate smart solutions. Being solution generators or
goal scorers, they feel a sense of achievement when they contribute
valuable content. Their self worth is based on their ability to
generate the best possible answers.
All managers have a ready
excuse for saying little in meetings: insufficient knowledge of the
content or someone else has already said what they thought of saying.
They fail to recognize other ways to contribute—by facilitating: asking
questions that stimulate others to think. Solution generators ask only
factual questions to get information to fuel their own thinking.
Scoring
goals gets rewarded because organizational cultures are based on male
values that fuel hyper-competition. Businesses need to be competitive
to beat their competitors hence the popularity of sports and war
metaphors. Unfortunately, internal competition for promotion is as
fierce as it is between businesses. Just as the best goal scorers in
sports earn the most money, executives with the best ideas to improve
the business win the top slots. In this context it is no surprise that
so-called "alpha males" often win out.
In the Alpha Male
Syndrome, Kate Ludeman and Eddie Erlandson tell us that alpha males
‘’are aggressive, results-driven achievers who insist on top
performance from themselves and others.’’1 Michael Eisner, formerly of
Disney, is a classic alpha male. Chainsaw Al Dunlap, famous for his
ruthless cost-cutting, is another. Importantly, ‘’the alpha male drive
for dominance that once assured the survival of the toughest has become
increasingly maladaptive.
In an environment where brains count a
whole lot more than brawn, a physical pipsqueak can be a giant.’’3
Allowing the need for competitive traits, Ludeman and Erlandson endorse
a more feminine style of leadership, noting that ‘’female managers tend
to be perceived as more consultative and inclusive, whereas men are
more directive and task oriented.’’4
Marshall Goldsmith’s
What Got You Here, Won’t Get You There argues that executives need to
rid themselves of 20 bad habits such as never apologizing or thanking
people, taking all the credit, interrupting rather than listening and,
generally, needing too strongly to be right. As Goldsmith explains:
‘’Winning too much is easily the most common behavioral problem that I
observe in successful people,’’6 adding that the need to win is the
core issue, because ‘’it underlies nearly every other behavioral
problem.’’7
But extreme alpha males are only the tip of the iceberg
because even less aggressive types base their identity and self worth
on their ability to score goals. When they have little to say it is
because they only see value in making statements about content.
Operating in facilitative mode just doesn't occur to them.
In
male dominated cultures, too many employees are mere onlookers. With no
say in its direction, they feel little commitment to the overall
enterprise. They can only observe the battlefield to see who gets to
call the shots and bet on the likely winners and casualties.
How Career Advancement Works
Career progression is based on making a visible impact through:
· Achieving outstanding results
· Scoring goals in meetings
To
achieve outstanding results, managers must be good with people, but
real fast-trackers also score goals whenever they interact with key
players across the organization. They present solutions that impress
anyone willing to listen. This approach to career advancement continues
all the way to the top. The smartest, most confident, most vocal and
assertive are increasingly competitive as the number of slots gets
fewer near the top.
The Facilitative Manager
Managing
has always entailed getting work done by delegating tasks. But
delegation is a two-edged sword. It can develop employees but it is
also used as a means of freeing managers up to do the "more important"
work of scoring big goals. Delegation is used for execution by the
"hands" leaving the "head" free to do all the thinking thus keeping
employees out of more strategic engagement.
Delegation was
appropriate in the industrial age but in a knowledge driven era the
focus shifts from tasks to mental work: thinking creatively, solving
complex problems and making delicate decisions. But mental work is also
a form of doing when managers keep it to themselves. Getting mental
work done through people means drawing solutions out of them with
questions like "What do you think?"
Here are some examples of facilitative questions for use in meetings:
· You’ve made a good case for doing X. What do you see as the disadvantages, risks, costs?
· What other options are worth considering? Their pros and cons, risks, costs?
· What evidence do we have that your proposal will work?
· What are the implications of doing X for other functions, strategies, customers, etc?
· What potential obstacles do you foresee? How would you propose addressing them?
· Who else has any ideas on this issue?
· How can we test your idea to verify that it will work in our context?
· How can we put your plan into action? Who else needs to be involved?
This
form of contribution is not as much fun as generating solutions.
Crucially, it doesn’t get rewarded. People get promoted by scoring
goals, not by being great facilitators. Scoring goals with smart
answers in meetings is infinitely more visible and impactful than
facilitation.
The Effective Manager
No manager
should only facilitate and never do anything but it is arguable that
the balance between the two is seriously out of whack. Management can
be likened to investment—striving to get the best return on all
resources relative to a set of goals. Managers need to manage
themselves too by regularly striving to justify in hard business terms
how they allocate their own time and other resources. How much time to
spend facilitating is an investment decision that must be made in
context. It depends on the likely return: how much value would be added
by greater engagement of these particular employees?
Unfortunately,
managers see their role as a decision making one. This is self-serving
because it is how they want to spend their time regardless of whether
it is justifiable on investment grounds. To even raise the question of
how much time a manager should devote to facilitation suggests seeing
such activity as a diversion from "real work." But it is arguable that
facilitation IS their job or at least a much bigger part of it than
they recognize.
So, cultures are disengaging because managers do all
the thinking and thus feel the strongest ownership for business
direction. Managers argue that their team members have little to say
about the bigger picture. But with no time invested in fostering their
interest and developing their perspective, this becomes a
self-fulfilling prophecy.
Balancing Facilitating and Doing
- Reward facilitation. The performance of managers in meetings should be rated highly only if they do some facilitating.
· Train managers on how to facilitate.
· Revise the managerial role and criteria for advancement.
· Recognize teams, and those who manage them, for generating the most bottom-up improvement ideas.
·
Reward objective measures of employee engagement such as turnover and
the number of good ideas or innovations generated by team members in
addition to survey results.
Ironically, managers need to foster
goal-scoring in their teams just as they struggle to do less of it
themselves. But non-managerial employees can also be trained and
rewarded for facilitating so that employees and managers alike achieve
the same balance of skills.
As long as organizations confine
employees to execution (as "hands"), while allowing managers to do most
of the thinking (as "heads"), deep employee engagement won't be
achieved.
Spread The Word
2 Responses to "Cultures of Disengagement" 
|
said this on 16 Dec 2009 4:41:03 PM EST
The experience you've articulated in this article is very real, and very disheartening. I think your list about achieving balance between facilitating and doing is a good one, but do you have any thoughts on how to affect this culture from the bottom-up? How do you help a client in the middle of the organizational structure aspire to be better faciliators and coaches when they don't have the power to change the goal-oriented rewards system?
|
|
said this on 16 Dec 2009 4:47:33 PM EST
Hi Allison,
I don't pretend to have any easy answers. Major cultural change is always difficult, even when it is top-down. All I can suggest is to raise people's awareness - circulate this article and my other one on this site "Four levels of employee engagement." I think this could be viewed as a leadership challenge for you - an opportunity to promote positive change. Best of luck. |

Author/Admin)