If the current state of our workforce is an indicator of how well equipped we are to respond to the difficult challenges of an economic downturn, then, we have some work to do.
The Conference Board recently reported that U.S. job satisfaction is at its lowest level since they began tracking two decades ago[i]. Talent Management magazine[ii] reports that research generally finds that 75 percent of employees in organizations are not engaged in their jobs, and of this group, some 15 to 20 percent are “so disconnected they work against the organization’s interests.” And this state of affairs is not confined to any particular group. According to TM, Research by Manfred F.R. Kets de Vries at INSEAD finds this disconnect in the executive suites as well.
And we are talking about people who actually have jobs!
We know we are in trouble, but are we aware of how our management model impacts the ability of the organization to regroup, rebound and reconnect people to the core mission?
Yesterday I participated in a webinar sponsored by Orgdyne (www.orgdyne.com) and led by Dean Robb, PhD, of the Center for Corporate Renewal[iii]. The topic was organization renewal, or the way in which organizations can continue to build and renew through periods of difficult challenges. One of the key points of the presentation delineated the differences between linear and the cyclical models of growth which impacts the way management responds to challenges from the environment.
In a linear model, management envisions a straight path of growth. The model supports “capturing” and institutionalizing what works. As the organization matures the focus shifts to preserving structures and processes to support a steady path forward. Unfortunately, this mental model is not only unrealistic, but has many hidden traps, one of which is that any deviations from this straight path caused by difficult challenges are viewed as threats and the typical management response is to hunker down and “protect the castle”.
The cyclical model differs in that the path forward looks more like a series of loops that move the organization back and forth between performance plateaus and adaptive periods where performance dips to re-adjust and re-organize structures and processes to meet shifting demands. It resembles the natural flow of life where we encounter mini cycles of birth, death and rebirth in marriage, jobs and family relationships. We have our peaks, but also valleys in which, ideally, we discern the way forward.
You will know if your organization is working from a linear model because you will feel the tension from the “survivor” or “defender” mode. As Dr. Robb says, the castle defends its position, erects walls, and this has the effect of disconnecting the organization from the challenges it must face. People are less engaged and connected when they are required to “freeze” their creative, innovative side to conform to a rigid structure imposed on them. Think of the strategy the Chinese used when fighting Ghenghis Khan. Rather than adapt new strategies to overcome a mighty foe, they were forced to build bigger and bigger walls and moats and each time Ghenghis cleverly found ways to penetrate them.
If your organization is working from a cyclical model, you will notice a sense of urgency and focus around task and purpose in order to spur the community to innovate, pull together, and give one’s best to navigate out of the woods. People are more engaged and connected because they are part of a community around which processes and structure are built. Think of the classic movie Zulu, the account of the 1879 Battle of Rorke’s Drift, when 3000 Zulu descend on 119 Englishmen. Not only does every person in the community give his best, innovate and rise to meet the challenge, the final respect shown by the Zulus to the victorious English, as illustrated in the movie, confirms the wisdom of innovating and imagining new possibilities, instead of giving up. It also shines light on the courage and character of those who respect their enemy even in the face of defeat.
Whether it is our personal spheres, or our work spheres, once we identify the ways in which we impose linear models on our organizations, how do we begin to work from a more cyclical model? ln the coming days, I will be writing about some of my experiences with using group process and management coaching to shift organization thinking. Supporting strategies include the development of competency models to expand personal repertoires, employee engagement tools to create feedback, and process improvement tools to connect people to their work.
I am most interested to hear what works for others and hope we can learn from one another.
[i] U.S. Job Satisfaction at Lowest Level in Two Decades, Press Release/News, The Conference Board, www.conference-bard.org January 2010
[ii] The Science of Engagement, Talent Management Magazine, February 2010, www.talentmgt.com
[iii] CtrForCorporateRenewal.com
Twitter
Great blog Nancy! Glad I found it.
Great article Nancy, I have worked in both environments, cyclical and linear. I believe a lot of the environment climate is related to the goals and objectives of the organization coupled with the life cycles of its goods and or services, but most importantly reflects the values and leadership capability of the organizations senior management. Often times companies fall into the linear model because of a shift in demand, and a lack of Human Capital to address this shift, they go into crisis mode as a means to survive. I believe it is imperative for leadership to infuse cyclical principles into the organization to both inspire employees and to spark innovation; linear employees are often stuck in the headlights and will ultimately assist the company in spiraling further downward.
I believe the most important take away is to be aware of where you are, and how might shift and encourage behaviors to help guide the organization in the direction you want to go. Often times leaders fail to look closely at their organizations environment and just jump right in at guiding the boat!
Mark, thanks for your insightful comments. A sudden shift demand seems like a good kind of crisis if it actually means the need for more human capital, or at least we frame it that way in the business world, but underneath, the “linear” principles play out and the inability to adapt, even to an upswing, will stifle the best organization. I can visualize the metaphor you offer, there is a difference between someone who jumps in and starts barking orders, without clear direction, and the person who sees beyond the horizon (which is after all, looks to be far away, but is really only 12 miles or so) and prepares the crew.