Last week, we went to an event entitled, ‘Employee Engagement: Communication Matters’ which was jointly held by AIM Research, the CMI and the Institute of Business Consulting. We heard from many eminent speakers during the evening, but what we were most struck by was the disparity between the subject matter and the media through which it was being communicated. Are ‘talking-heads’ with slides on stage, with the audience sitting in silence most of the time,  really the most effective way to  make the point that employee engagement requires quality two-way communication?

At Delta7 we believe that dialogues with employees are a great way to truly engage with them. It gives a chance for all parties to give their point of view, not just those who are deemed to be the experts. We’d love to be involved in  an engagement event that provides the same sort of environment for its participants that it’s advocating they provide for their employees.

Tweet This Post

Business jargon can be a place to hide at the same time as being a kind of weapon to show off your prowess. Meetings can sometimes feel like they’re dominated by people jousting with words.

And despite the volume of words being used, all too often people are left in the dark about what’s going on and feeling disconnected from each other.

How do you burst the bubble when you come up against ‘bigger, cleverer words’?

We’d love to know

Tweet This Post

The Department of Business, Innovation and Skills has just published a new report by David MacLeod and Nita Clarke on employee engagement.  We wholeheartedly recommend this report – it makes some great points and is filled with useful case studies.  It’s very hard to get to the end and still avoid the conclusion that having an engaged workforce really does improve bottom line results.

But what actually is engagement?  Is it an attitude (e.g. pride, loyalty), a behaviour (going the extra mile) or an outcome (e.g. lower absenteeism)?  The authors amassed over 50 definitions and share three, all of which are a bit woolly.  Many of the contributors just said “you know it when you see it”.  Here’s the definition they end up with for the report:

Engagement is a workplace approach designed to ensure that employees are committed to their organisation’s goals and values, motivated to contribute to organisational success, and are able at the same time to enhance their own sense of well-being.

This is probably a good summary of how the word is typically used in HR and internal communications departments.  There are lots of things to say about it, but my underlying concern is this:  It implies that engagement is something that is done to people.  I want to suggest a different starting point.

The starting point is to notice that “engagement” is a metaphor.  Historically the word means a connection – a coming together.  You use a clutch to engage a gear, armies engage in battle, and of course people become engaged with other people when they buy their services, agree to marry them, or just make an appointment to see them.  The extension of the word into emotional experience is just an extension of this sense of connection.  If I have an engaging experience at the theatre or the cinema, it’s because I’m connecting with something – I care about what happens to the characters, or how the underlying themes are developed.  The same sense is true of engaging books, engaging conversations, engaging stories and so on – they are all examples of connecting with things we find important.

If we take this sense of connection as the central meaning, we get a very clear and simple definition of workplace engagement:  A felt connection between what is important to me as an employee and what is important to the organisation I work for.  A voluntary staff member working for a charitable cause they passionately believe in will obviously be much more engaged with their work than a student working at McDonalds.

By simplifying the definition of engagement down to this level, we can create a clearer picture of what it looks like when people are feeling engaged:

A successful “engagement” intervention is anything that increases the size of the orange overlap in the centre of the diagram, the space in which leadership concerns and workforce concerns connect.  Notice that whatever your role in your organisation – business partner, OD manager, senior leader – whenever you instigate some form of “engagement” activity – i.e. you create this central space – you are taking on the role of a leader.  How engaged people will feel as a result correlates directly with the quality of this interaction:  Its openness, honesty, integrity, clarity, vulnerability and so on.

Tweet This Post

For some reason, the saga unfolding around Sir Fred Goodwin’s pension revelations last week made a connection in my brain with distant memories of economics lectures.  The lecture in question was on the “behavioural theory of the firm”, taken from a book of the same name by Richard Cyert and James March.  Before this book was written in the sixties, the main theory of the firm in economics circles was that of “transaction costs”, which says that the reason businesses exist is that individuals find themselves trading at a sufficient volume for it to stop making sense to work independently; trading as a single entity saves everyone time and money, so that’s what everyone does.  This is the sort of theory that economists love – transaction costs can be measured and modelled, because you can put numbers against them.  The behavioural theory, on the other hand, says that actually firms exist and behave for a set of very non-rational reasons that can be hard to quantify.  To understand why firms act in certain ways, you have to understand the underlying behavioural drivers of the people involved.  Cyert and March suggested, for example, that while the owners of a business would typically be more interested in longer term profit, the managers would be more interested in shorter term growth.

This is where Sir Fred comes in, as his behaviour since he took over at RBS in 2001 would make him a fitting poster boy for the behavioural theory, and his decision to hang onto his enhanced pension pot has put his character into the public spotlight in a way that most executives will never experience.  Former colleagues have given us insights into the personality and behaviour of a man who drove one of the most rapid and aggressive expansions of a financial institution ever seen.  To put it politely, it doesn’t sound like Sir Fred was suffering from any ego-related problems during that period.

Now it’s been a long time since I studied the “behavioural theory” at business school, and I must confess that I’ve never looked in detail at the original source material, but the question that struck me last week is this:  Isn’t it a bit odd that we even have something called a “behavioural theory” to describe this kind of thing?  Doesn’t it all seem incredibly like common sense?  Ego-driven personalities in charge of organisations are surely going to find ways to justify aggressive business expansion just as much as similar personalities in previous centuries justified military expansion.  Everyone who works in an organisation knows this, and it’s visible at every level, not just the top.  Fiefdoms tend to emerge around egos, not rational process boundaries, and most people can see from how rapidly certain individuals’ fiefdoms grow exactly who is going to make it to the top.

Appending the word “theory”, though, brings the whole thing back into the comfortable territory of scientific language, which is where economists like it to be.

And that’s why I think the behavioural theory is a useful parable for organisational life as a whole.  Because we live in a culture where legitimacy is bound up in what is scientific and rational, we find it really hard to deal with things that we know are real but don’t reduce easily to numbers.  Everyone might know from experience who the best and worst performers in a firm are, but decisions still have to defer to the outcomes of the performance management regime, because we have no way of dealing with things that aren’t measured.  Everyone might know that a plan is never going to work, but when confronted by a dictatorial boss, they can’t rely on their intuition because it isn’t backed up by “hard” analysis.  Everyone might know that the real reason a board member stepped down had nothing to do with their personal life, and that the financials are going to suffer as a result, but how do you quantify executive politics?

The current financial crisis actually isn’t too difficult to model and understand rationally, as is nicely demonstrated by Jonathan Jarvis’ visualisation (see below).  What the visual telling of the crisis highlights is that rational theory and modelling can’t stop humans doing stupid things.

There’s a deeper problem though, which is this:  We lack an organisational language for discussing things that don’t reduce to numbers.  Information that is quantifiable becomes “hard”, a metaphor that equates tangibility with reality – you can see and touch hard things, whereas feelings and intuition are “soft”, not to be trusted.  The message is this:  If you can’t put a number on it, then it ain’t real, and should be left outside the meeting room door thankyou very much.

And so we insist on trying to squeeze everything into models with absurd rational names like “behavioural theory”.  I like to think that this is just a hangover of industrialisation, and that with time (and probably a few more crises) a new paradigm will emerge.  Let’s hope it’s sooner rather than later.

One closing thought:  If there’s a danger in thinking that the only fact is a “hard” fact, there’s an equal danger in the opposite direction.  The problem is not that we are using rational, quantitative “facts” when we should be using experiential, intuitive “facts”.  The problem is that we find it necessary to split the two apart in the first place.

Tweet This Post

What does a meaningful workplace actually look like?

In my review of Gurnek Bains’ Meaning Inc my main criticism was that it barely said anything about representation, without which there can be no meaning. Unfortunately there wasn’t any space to develop the idea further, and as it probably sounds a bit arcane on first reading I want to spend some time filling in a few blanks.

Back in the nineteenth century most scientists believed there was a very strange substance that filled the universe called luminiferous aether, or more simply, ether. It was invisible, intangible, in fact completely impossible to observe. So why did they believe it existed? Because they had figured out that light was a wave, and they knew that all waves needed a medium to travel through. Neither of those statements turned out to be completely true, but they seemed so obvious back then that no one really challenged them.

Taking this as a parable, ether was to a previous generation of physicists what I fear meaning is becoming for the current generation of HR directors. Employees are happier, fitter and more productive when they can (in Gurnek Bains’ phrase) “connect their work to experiences that are important to them”. Meaning then becomes the invisible, unobservable, hypothetical medium through which the connection is made.

It becomes treated as a quantifiable thing, as people observe that there “is (or isn’t) much meaning in our workplace”, or “we need to bring more meaning into our employees’ lives”. Budget is then spent on meaning-generation activities – bringing values to life, empowering workers, improving communications and so on.

Now I really like the definition of meaning as the connection between what I do and what’s important to me, but I suggest we need to get beyond the “ether” model of how this happens. For the whole concept to be useful, we need a much more precise understanding of exactly what is being connected with what, and that can’t be done unless we understand how people represent their experiences. In short, meaning is not a connection between experiences but between representations of experiences.

If I say “our strategy is meaningless”, I’m not thinking about a disembodied, abstract concept that just somehow came to be in my mind, I’m thinking about how I felt when I picked up the 16 pages of jargon with corporate branding on the cover and the CEO’s picture on the first page that landed on my desk, or the hour long presentation of business-speak and pie charts I was subjected to in a darkened conference hall at the start of the year. If I say our organisation’s values are meaningless, I’m probably talking about the list of words on my mouse pad or my screensaver, which seem totally divorced from my everyday experience.

Similarly, if I say that what I actually do at work is meaningless, I’m referring to physical interactions with physical people and physical things, not an ethereal atmosphere that pervades my surroundings. The meaning is (or isn’t) being represented through the spreadsheets I fill in, the components I assemble, the programs I write, the conversations I have and so on. Either these represent something that is important to me or they don’t.

I guess most HR or OD directors would love their people’s representation of work to be whatever they’ve written in their people strategy: “A challenging, rewarding, exciting … (fill in the blanks) … place to work” or whatever. But this is the land of ether. Meaning in reality is created by individuals, with individual experiences. You can’t create meaning for them, but you can create more meaningful representations.

That NASA janitor everyone talks about who supposedly said that scrubbing the floors was helping to put a man on the moon might not have been quite so upbeat if no one had mentioned to him the moon part. This is the situation in most large organisations – there is no JFK figure giving the big picture that people can locate themselves in.

So how do you make a meaningful representation? The answer is that you connect what you are saying and the way you are saying it as closely as possible to the actual working experiences of your people. Sounds fine in theory; here are some ideas in practice:

• Read the Sun. Then use the same vocabulary for your internal comms. Stop speaking the language of your leadership team, because their experience is absolutely not the norm for everyone else.
• Tell stories. People will sit for two hours enthralled in a cinema, but will be fidgeting after two minutes in the average corporate presentation. People make connections through narrative, not through bullet points.
• Make space for conversations. How many people in your organisation would say that their most meaningful experiences of the day are talking to friends over the water cooler? When people can speak (without feeling guilty about wasting time) to colleagues from other parts of the business, they are creating connections that help them see how they fit into the bigger picture.
• Be honest if you don’t know the answer. Leaders too often fill the vacuum of uncertainty with the right-sounding words. Because the words aren’t meaningful though, they just serve to disconnect people further.
• Be visual. Not wanting to sound too much like a sales pitch, but people find visual representations of ideas and stories easier to follow and remember than purely verbal ones (think cinema again). Everyone says that for a workplace to be meaningful, people need to see how they fit in the bigger picture, but ironically all we usually show them is words.

Tweet This Post

Meaning Inc:  What does it all mean?

Meaning Inc came out about a year ago now, and is basically a manifesto from business psychology consultancy YSC. Although its stated author is YSC’s CEO Gurnek Bains, judging from the Acknowledgements it was very much a collaborative effort. The models and case studies (not to mention cover recommendations) are evidently drawn from client history. This isn’t problematic, although the content does sometimes wander into sales-pitch territory, and I think awareness of potential clients reading the text has probably watered a lot of it down.

There’s a long line of purpose / values / culture books that started with Peters & Waterman and Rosabeth Moss Kanter in the early eighties, all stressing the importance of motivation through vision, values, culture and so on. The question is, is YSC’s “blueprint for business success in the 21st century” genuinely new, or is it the same old ideas re-packaged with new labels? The authors raise this question themselves by making a big deal about the year 2000 as a reference point for change, saying that “what worked in the 1980s and 1990s is not working any longer”. So do they have a different answer?

What is meaning?

The whole package revolves around the central concept of meaning, a word that I imagine will scare off quite a few people right from the off. So what do they mean by it?

“Here is a broad, yet precise, definition of the term: essentially the meaning of any word is directly related to the other words it connects with or the external reality to which it relates. It is the sense of connectedness with something that lies at the heart of meaning in a literal sense … Meaning is experienced when we are able to connect our thoughts or activities with something else in a way that creates a sense of relevance or context.” P79

“(Meaning Inc.) refers to companies whose success is founded on creating meaning for their employees, as well as for their customers and other stakeholders”. P15

So meaning, at its simplest level, is connection. As the quote suggests, this is most obvious when we talk about the meanings of words, but it applies to other forms of meaning as well. For businesses, meaning arises “when people are able to connect what they are doing to things that matter to them”. The connection idea may seem a little abstract, but it’s actually a really helpful concept. Firstly, as the authors suggest, it matches what we know about the way brains physically work. When we make sense of something, the wiring in our heads actually changes, making new connections to reflect the new learning. Secondly, it gives leaders a simple mental picture about what meaning creation looks like: Somebody somewhere is connecting whatever they’re seeing reading / hearing / overhearing to something that’s important to them. Similarly, meaninglessness is disconnection. Think of the average corporate conference – lots of slides, lots of presentations, but no meaning if people can’t connect what they are seeing and hearing with the things they care about.

Meaning creation

The book proceeds to cover the various ways that leaders can help their employees create meaning, which can be summarised as follows:

• Articulate the “why” – not just the what and the how. To do this, leaders need to be more authentic, which means doing one or two things really well rather than trying to be all things to all men.

• Move the company’s purpose beyond either simple metrics (the “we will be number one” mentality) or an existence rationale (“we make great widgets”). You need to “place employees as players in a wider social narrative”.

• Help employees connect to the organisation’s history and values, creating meaning by locating themselves in an ongoing story. Everything else may be moving, but the “corporate DNA” has to stay consistent.

• Base the brand on the corporate DNA, and make sure it’s lived from the “inside out”. Brands “find life in the behaviour of people”.

• Help people have an impact, by giving them clear outcomes and the freedom to achieve them creatively.

• Promote employee growth – both professionally and personally. As with leadership, this means turning “spikes” of competency into “towering area of distinctiveness”.

• Help people feel “liked, accepted and validated” in order to create a sense of belonging.

• Take work-life balance more seriously.

But why “meaning”?

This is a great list. My problem is, exactly the same content could be (and has been) written many times without needing to talk about “meaning” at all. All of the above activities are supposed to create meaning by connecting what people do with things that are important to them. I’m not saying for one minute that they don’t, but surely the question is how? Because the exploration of meaning itself is so shallow, the question of how never arises … all the practical chapters could be re-written without reference to meaning at all. I suggest there are two foundational building blocks missing, which would cast the list above in a new light:

Firstly, the relationship between meaning and personal experience. Things are more meaningful to us when they are more closely connected to our experience. If a child wants to know what a word means, I need to explain it to them in light of what they already know. So I explain the meaning of “horse” to a four-year old in relation to “cow”, not in relation to “mammal”, because I can connect to their experience of cows, not mammals.

The problem in business is that most leaders try to connect what they are saying to their own experience, rather than the experience of their people. “Profitability” and “competitive threat” may be highly meaningful to a chief executive, but probably mean nothing to a fork-lift truck driver.

Secondly, the relationship between meaning and representation. Meaning doesn’t exist in a vacuum. All the “components” of meaning the authors describe – purpose, strategy, values, “corporate DNA” and so on – are described in the abstract, but they are things that people have to represent to themselves in some form if they are to have any meaning. The strategy has to be written down. The business plan has to be drawn up.

This makes it astonishing to me that there is virtually no discussion at all about communications. The main way in which leaders attempt to pro-actively make meaning for their people is through communications. I think most of those attempts fail because – as I said before – people can’t connect the abstract content they hear and read with the physical experience of their everyday lives.

So, in conclusion: There’s little here by way of practical advice that I haven’t read before. That doesn’t mean the book won’t be hugely valuable as a stimulus and source of ideas. But to my mind there’s a much fuller popular analysis of meaning yet to be written, that could cast new light on the problems this book addresses.

Tweet This Post

Our re-working of the old adage “a picture speaks a thousand words” is transforming the way clients communicate in their organisations. By translating current context, vision and strategy into large, colourful pictures, we provide a powerful catalyst for discussing the challenging and complex changes which organisations must negotiate successfully.

Our ‘Visual Dialogue’ process pulls together collective thinking to create shared understanding, consensus and ultimately action that creates change.

Tweet This Post