Recently, I blogged about, How Many HR Staff you should have. Today there is a related article in a United Kingdom publication about efficiency in government workers versus private workers.  I should preface these findings by saying that just as is the case in the U.S., the U.K. is facing major cut backs in government budgets. This research essentially says that the public sector lacks the management skills to improve efficiency. Not a popular message, but if you are a proponent of professional management in local government, you will appreciate the emphasis on the importance of involving employees in order to make them more accountable.

Some key findings.

*        In the U.K., private businesses generate more personal accountability than the public sector for performance, allowing them to achieve better staff efficiency. Staff utilization rates for private and public differed by 14%.  To illustrate the difference, the study offered an example of a 30,000-person county council. If utilization rates were improved from 32% to 44%, the same work could be done by approximately 22,000 staff (8,000 fewer), a staff reduction of 27%.

*        Managers and supervisors in local government were found to be spending fewer than 15 minutes per day (only 3% of their time on average) engaged in ‘active’ management such as following up on work assigned to their team.  But at 25 minutes per day (5% of the time) the average private sector manager was not much better.  

 The consultants in the study point out that simply cutting back budgets will only result in reduced services and “chaos”. Far more significant changes are needed, including a change in mindsets, improved management skills and a shift in culture to include more involvement by employees.

 The following quote from the researchers illustrates this point:

“For instance, during our observations most managers were found to be uncomfortable confronting the poor performance of staff or even establishing with staff what good performance meant. Many seemed more comfortable spending time doing hands-on work in the mistaken belief that they were ‘helping’, rather than managing people and performance levels. Often they were observed busily carrying out administrative tasks, while outside their office their staff were clearly under-utilized; it is crazy to have well-paid managers spending so much time on administration or doing the work of their people when their greatest value would be to spend more time ensuring their staff’s performance is being optimized.” 

Amen.

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.

[ii] The Science of Engagement, Talent Management Magazine, February 2010, www.talentmgt.com

[iii] CtrForCorporateRenewal.com