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

One example of what can happen when employees, union and non-union, and management work together, can be found in Montgomery Ohio, a small city not far from Cincinnati.  Several years ago the City implemented a Health Care Committee that relies upon labor, union and non-union, and management to work together to guide the city health care policy and program. Recently I spent some time talking with Wayne Davis, the Assistant City Manager, about their program.

[Note: The Center for State and Local Government published a case study on the City of Montgomery Ohio, titled Employee Leadership in Health Insurance and Wellness Programs.  You can find that link here.

 The goal of the committee was to

• represent employee health care concerns,
• negotiate favorable rates and coverages with insurance providers,
• provide cost effective and comprehensive coverage for the City’s taxpayers and the employees, and
• communicate with work units about key health care issues.

The results have been

• A decline in sick leave usage,
• Containment of health care premiums (they have experienced 1/3 of the average premium rate increases in the Cincinnati region), and
•  drop in average annual medical claims.

The City of Montgomery has successfully developed a culture of employee engagement that works well with both their union and non-union employees. Early on management recognized the need to make deep structural changes in its organization, and worked with the Commonwealth Centers for High Performance Organizations to develop creative paths to a new way of working together in an environment steeped in local government politics and traditions.

The union environment here consists of the FOP (Fraternal Order of Police), the IAFF (International Association of Firefighters) and AFSCME (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees). As Wayne puts it, “everyone has skin in the game” meaning everyone has something at stake, and gains and losses are felt by all. The City has spent significant time (over 7 years) and energy working on building this culture which values emotional intelligence, relationship building and keeps the organization vision focused on high performance.

Wayne explains that although it is not easy to alter values within an established hierarchical system, they were able to realize success by essentially creating a parallel organization within the organization, represented by the committee structure, where a different set of rules and values flourishes. In this alternative “team” structure, manifest in the health care committee, title and rank don’t mean anything, and the normal rules governing reporting relationships are suspended in the interest of participation and contribution by everyone on the committee.

When engaged in the team, the focus is on working together to complete a task while sharing commitment to values. He notes that the “values” question is raised whenever needed to keep the team focused. For example, every idea is scrutinized for its benefit to the whole organization, not just one part, and the team holds itself responsible for not just coming up with an idea, but creating a realistic plan for what it would take to make it happen. Although consensus building is valued, the team will base outcomes on majority rule when necessary.

The team is made up of five people, one from each of the following groups:

1. Public Works
2. Fire
3. Police
4. Non-union, non-management employees
5. Management (appointed by City Manager)

The team is given parameters to work within and has the authority to create recommendations that are then carried to City Council. Although the City Manager or the Council has the authority to reject these, they have not because over time the team has earned a reputation for building value and also saving the City money.

One of the significant steps along the way involved educating the team about the budget so that decisions could be based on meaningful data. This also raised the level of accountability for all involved to produce improved outcomes.

Interesting, and an important lesson from this case study, is that in the beginning, Wayne modeled the role of facilitator and led the agenda setting process, but over time, as responsibilities were delegated to various members, the team become more involved in the agenda setting. So, the transfer of skills allowed the team to function with shared leadership. A key component of successful teams is the recognition of individual skills and learning from group members, as in this case, where the whole team became skilled at facilitating topics, setting goals and creating a plan for implementation.

Some additional areas of interest: each team member attends training twice a year to learn new skills and knowledge.  They meet once a month, and are all active in gathering feedback through surveys or informal interviews.  One important role of the committee is to keep people informed and presentations are prepared and delivered by a minimum of three members of the committee to various parts of the organization. Another skill that has emerged from the committee involves drafting legislation for Council. This has allowed the City Manager to step back from the direct ownership of the product  and produced a greater degree of acceptance by the organization.

Overall, management has not allowed what has always been to dictate what might be, and has remained committed to the effort, despite challenges and naysayers. When asked about the labor contracts, Wayne indicated that the contracts contain language that effectively supports labor participation in the committee.  He did not seem concerned about abridging management rights or indicate that this represented any great concession on the part of labor or management.  In particular, I was impressed by his final thoughts. He said with respect to the union, they value discussing things as adults, and each side being heard.