The Natural Case for Employee Engagement
Yesterday the Strategic Management Bureau asked, “Is the unending search for ‘the business case’ for employee engagement a futile exercise?” and cited an article on the topic. In my response to the question I suggested that the attempt to create a link between employee engagement and the bottom line was an indication of the bankruptcy of the current management “paradigm” that assumes that there is a single rationality involved in running a sustainable business. There are at least two – the logic of the things and the logic of people. Pioneering sociologist, Max Weber called them zweckrationale and wertrationale – instrumental or task-based logic and values-based logic. The efficacy of the former is based upon its ability to deliver results; the latter is intrinsically valuable (like saying “please” and “thank you”) and requires no justification.
In zweckrationale people are instruments, means-to-an-end; they are treated as objects, as things. In wertrationale, they are people – ends-in-themselves. Over the last fifty years, ever since the reform of the business schools, we have seen the ascent of zweckrationale over wertrationale. This was accompanied by the move from the stakeholder view of the corporation to the shareholder view and the reduction of the purposes of a firm to the single one of the maximization of shareholder value.
More fundamentally, this attempt to reduce everything to numbers is a failure to see that organizations are best viewed, not as structures of logic, but as ecological processes. As readers of this blog know, this perspective contends that enterprises are conceived in passion, born in communities of trust and practice, grow through the application of reason and mature in power. As successful ventures grow larger, they become modular (specialized) and stratified (hierarchical) for the very best of reasons – to embed a proven recipe for success. Initially these bureaucracies are productive and enabling. But over time they become frozen structures of dominance and coercive, crushing the initiative and creativity of their people. This sets the stage for crisis and destruction, but with the hope of renewal.
This is what the decades-long leadership movement, with its call for “quality of working life”, “empowerment, “engagement” etc. is all about – the restoration of the communities of trust and practice that evoke people’s passions that lead to initiative, creativity and innovation in the context of work.
The Ecological Perspective
The ecological perspective on the twin logics used to create a sustainable organization comes across most clearly when we look at the core of the ecological mental model in the heart of what I call the “sweet zone” of the ecocycle:
The twin logics, strategic management (Weber’s zweckrationale) and creative leadership (wertrationale) cross in the middle of a field of tension between the organization’s ends (on the left) and its means (on the right). Strategic management is all about results and methods – it connects “what-we-want” with the “how-we-get-it”. Creative leadership, on the other hand, is about identity and purpose; it connects “who-we-are” with “why-we-are-here”. The two logics work at right angles to each other. If we get the two logics working together the organization will head to the “north” (or 12 o’clock) toward a sustainable future. If we don’t get them working together, the organization will get pulled either toward the left or the right. An excessive focus on ends leads leftward to the failure trap (not shown in this diagram), where there is a lot of passion but no results. An excessive focus on means leads rightward toward the success trap (also not shown), where the current power structure rules.
Typically large successful firms focus obsessively on means, and wind up too far to the right. In an attempt to come left, they talk about empowerment, engagement and growing people but then reduce everything to a program with Key Success Factors (KSFs), Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and scorecards measured by endless HR-administered surveys. This mechanical, programmatic approach ensures that the organization stays firmly on the right hand side, with people treated as a means to the firm’s ends, not as ends-in-themselves. Of course the employees themselves can detect this nonsense at fifty paces. They may not be able to articulate exactly why they feel uncomfortable; they just know that they are.
“But if you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it,” I hear critics respond. Exactly. Employee engagement is not a program to be managed, it is not a set of techniques; it is an integrative process that must be lead. It does not require the firm to do anything additional or new; it demands that it stops doing a whole lot of things and that it does everything else slightly differently. Inevitably such change threatens the current power structure of every organization. That’s why it is so difficult.
What is required is a process akin to the Lean Movement and the Toyota Production System (TPS), from which it took its inspiration. TPS is not a set of techniques but a complete philosophy that must be embraced at all levels of the organization if it is to be effective. It cannot be adopted piecemeal; it is all about changing systems and will inevitably clash with MBO targets that focus on individual performance. Lean may be an important component of any successful attempt to move to the left in the ecological sweet zone. Unless the firm’s existing value streams are mapped, connected to customer value and made to flow, it is unclear what the firm should stop doing.
The employee engagement movement, like its predecessors, can never succeed without questioning the foundations of current management thought. To succeed it requires a new philosophy of business that embraces both the logic of things and the logic of people and acknowledges that they are profoundly different. Without such a philosophy, wertrationale will always be playing an “away” game on zweckrationale’s ground, with zweckrationale’s ball and zweckrationale’s rules! And zweckrationale will win…
This entry was posted in Change, General, Leadership, Strategy and tagged change, community, complex systems, creativity, crisis, destruction, ecocycle, ecological perspective, ecosystem, empowerment, engagement, KPI, KSF, leadership, lean, management ethics, Max Weber, means and ends, passion, power, purpose, reason, renewal, scorecard, shareholder value model, social traps, strategy, sustainability, sweet zone, Toyota Production System, trust, value stream, wertrationale, zweckrationale. Bookmark the permalink. ← Clayton Christensen at Davos: An Ecological Perspective on Innovation Hunting Dynamics: Why Chance Encounters Should Not Be Left to Chance →-
Archives
- November 2024
- May 2024
- February 2023
- December 2022
- September 2022
- May 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- November 2021
- October 2021
- January 2021
- November 2020
- September 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- September 2019
- July 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- November 2018
- October 2018
- March 2018
- July 2017
- April 2017
- November 2016
- October 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- May 2015
- March 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- September 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
-
Meta
One Response to The Natural Case for Employee Engagement