No, It’s Not Okay For You To Play Devil’s Advocate

Dear Meeting Colleague,
 
We are sorry to inform you that your request to play devil’s advocate cannot be accepted at this time. You’ve done a great job trying to identify everything that could go wrong with almost every idea that comes up in any meeting that you attend. That is commendable. You go above and beyond in your effort to make sure that we “see all sides.”

We applaud your knack for finding the flaws in any idea, but must deny your request at this time.

We know that the market is challenging, and it’s very likely that we haven’t thought of every single aspect of what could go wrong. Therefore, we are in dire need of a role we call “Ark Builder.”

The description is as follows:

• Nice to have:
◦ Sees that storm clouds are coming and can predict, or at least have some inkling, of what could happen when it rains
◦ Understands, and can articulate, what the problem might be when the rain does fall
◦ Can articulate the challenges and risks if substantial rain falls, and what the issues will arise
• Must have:
◦ Be able to clearly articulate their ideas on how to address the issues of the oncoming rain, such as building a large water floatation vehicle, developing a sandbagging plan, or other flood prevention/aversion plans
◦ Be willing to take on the work entailed in implementing such plans
◦ Understand that ideas may or may not be taken
◦ Be willing to take coaching and input from others
 
If this is a role that interests you, we welcome your application.

Unfortunately, this role has gone unfilled for too long. There is no increase in pay, but a vast increase in satisfaction and engagement for you – and everyone around you. For the company, you’ll actually be helping maintain productivity and minimize losses.
 
• •According to one survey, 78% of employees reported a loss of at least 3 hours a week because of complainers
• 11% of respondents said they’ve left a job because they couldn’t stand working with someone perpetually negative
• Unproductive time spent on problems (without finding solutions) can costs companies thousands of dollars per year, per employee
(Source)
 
In fact, there’s really no application or interview process. Any time you want the job, it is yours for the taking…
As of now, however, the Devil’s Advocate role has been permanently filled. Your requests now – and all future requests – will be denied. We’re no longer interested in fielding complaints and criticism without proposed solutions.
 
Thank you…
 
Are there people you’d like to share this rejection letter with? Why?
 
What more might be possible if we took on the Ark Builder role, and focused on finding solutions instead of just highlighting potential problems?

Anil Saxena is the President of Cube 2.14, an organizational development consulting firm that works with clients to increase both customer and employee engagement while decreasing turnover, improving customer retention, and increasing profitability within organizations.

Saxena is a certified High Impact coach and trainer and a Joint Application Design facilitator. He is also certified by both Rush Systems and IBM as a focus group facilitator. He is an inaugural member of Northwestern University’s Learning and Organizational Change program, and he earned his bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering from the Illinois Institute of Technology.

Can There Be Too Much Review?

Review sessions are important of course, so managers and teams can make sure requirements are being fulfilled, but is there such thing as too much review?
 
REVIEW-A-GO-ROUND

On a recent very time sensitive client project there were 5 reviews of the final product:
• Round 1 “Final Review”
◦ The group that created the final product
• Round 2 “Final Review”
◦ The group’s bosses
• Round 3 Final Review
◦ HR
• Round 4 “Final Review”
◦ Group of consultants
• Round 5 “Final Review”
◦ Another internal “cross-functional” review board.
 
At each round of reviews:
• People found small things to change.
• Rehashed decisions that were made previously.

 
• Second-guessed the group that created the final product.
• Wordsmithed…. a lot.
 
In the end the final product is not very different than the “original” final product. The only difference is that the end product was delayed by months, literally.
 
The group “empowered” to create the final product felt undermined and demoralized.
 
Sure, there will be the need for review and changes – it can help prevent dissatisfied customers, lawsuits, and even embarrassment, but putting every project through the review wringer only damages the overall quality of the project. Little by little, the original idea is chipped away, leaving some barely recognizable version of everyone’s best intentions – instead of the goal of the original project.
 
ANTI-AUTONOMY
Don’t add extra checks that don’t actually add something of value to the end product (as in make it better).   Not only does this slow down productivity and add all kinds of unnecessary delays to a project, it also takes autonomy away from the people doing the actual work. As Daniel Pink stated in Drive – “Autonomy – the desire to direct our own lives” is one of the key elements in highly productive workers.

Without it productivity, creativity and overall quality suffers
 
If the project team knows that no matter what they do, the project will be scrutinized from all angles, with seemingly endless proposals for change, their interpretations of a client or project manager’s vision becomes less and less important, and the end product suffers.

That group creating the final product shifts from “owners” to “just workers” when autonomy is taken away.
 
When putting a project in the hands of a project team, trust their expertise! There’s a reason they are the designers, writers, developers, subject matter experts – let them do what they do best.
 
A project may never be perfect, but it doesn’t need to be passed over by every single set of eyes in a company. Grant the skilled professionals the autonomy they deserve, and the work will reflect the personal care they put into it.
 
What does your organization do to instill autonomy?

Anil Saxena is the President of Cube 2.14, an organizational development consulting firm that works with clients to increase both customer and employee engagement while decreasing turnover, improving customer retention, and increasing profitability within organizations.

Saxena is a certified High Impact coach and trainer and a Joint Application Design facilitator. He is also certified by both Rush Systems and IBM as a focus group facilitator. He is an inaugural member of Northwestern University’s Learning and Organizational Change program, and he earned his bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering from the Illinois Institute of Technology.

The Most Critical Leadership Development Question

Do you want to create a team of high performers that exceed expectations that are highly motivated?  If the answer is yes (and why wouldn’t it be) there is a simple question that should drive every development conversation a leader has.

“What do you do better than 90% of everyone else?”

WHY DOES THIS QUESTION WORK?

This simple question allows for deep learning, insight and creates a path for accelerated development.

• It gives you a window into the mind of your teammates.
◦       What are their motivations?
◦       What makes them passionate?
◦       What are skills they have you didn’t know about?
• It gives your team insight into themselves
◦       What are they honestly really good at doing?
◦       Where could they be focusing their time to help the team out more?

THERE IS AN EASY TWO-PART PROCESS TO LEVERAGE THIS CRITICAL QUESTION.

1. Give feedback in the moment, both positive and constructive.
◦ Feedback shouldn’t be held to a weekly one-on-one or a quarterly check in.  It should be given in the moment (or as soon as possible) that it is warranted.
◦ There is an easy 5-step method to deliver positive and constructive feedback.

Positive

Constructive

Provide Context for Feedback

Provide Context for Feedback

Explain specifically what went well

Explain specifically and objectively what went wrong

Focus on their identity and skills

Let them know what they did well

Congratulate and give them the opportunity to explain why they chose to act that way

Ask them what they can do improve? What help do they need from you?

◦ Do this frequently to give you practice
◦ Give just as much, if not more, positive feedback as constructive.

Corporate Leadership Council conducted a study 19,000 employees from 34 companies, in 7 industry groups in 20 countries and asked them what impact certain actions had on their performance.  This was carried out in 2002.

Key findings:

▪ Fair and accurate informal feedback increases performance by 39%!
▪ Formal reviews with emphasis on strengths increases performance by 37%!
 
2. During regularly scheduled development conversations ask one question to drive the conversation:
“What do you do better than 90% of everyone else?”

Based on the answer you can then help them look for:

• Training courses to deepen their areas of expertise
• Opportunities to leverage their ability as a mentor to other teammates in their expertise
• Projects where s/he can leverage their expertise
 
That’s it.  Keep it simple and straightforward. What do you think?  Would this work for your organization?
 
What have you seen as the best process for managing performance and development?
 
Anil Saxena is the President of Cube 2.14, an organizational development consulting firm that works with clients to increase both customer and employee engagement while decreasing turnover, improving customer retention, and increasing profitability within organizations.

Saxena is a certified High Impact coach and trainer and a Joint Application Design facilitator. He is also certified by both Rush Systems and IBM as a focus group facilitator. He is an inaugural member of Northwestern University’s Learning and Organizational Change program, and he earned his bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering from the Illinois Institute of Technology.

When Does Your Workforce Need A Transformation?

When Does Your Workforce Need a Transformation?

Lately, we’ve been talking a lot about employee retreats – and why they are so effective in bringing about transformations for your workforce. But why does your company need a transformation in the first place? What unique scenarios require transformations?
 
Specific needs will be different for every business, but there are some certain situations where this idea of “transformation” is so much more important than training alone – or, maybe more accurately, regular training just won’t cut it.
 
Transformations, as discussed in the last post, are major changes to ways of thinking, not just ways of doing things – so when would this kind of change be most necessary? Here are a few examples:

1. New Leadership
 
When a new leader comes on board, it can be tough to gain the respect of existing team members. Additionally, it can be difficult for those employees to fully understand the necessity of bringing in this new leader, changing the group dynamic, and relatively upsetting the “natural order” they’ve gotten used to.
 
In a situation like this, the desired transformation is from an attitude of adversity to an attitude of acceptance, respect, and collaboration.
 
Through an effective retreat, the team would have a chance to get to know this new leader, address concerns in an open and supportive environment, and hopefully get on the same page about why this leader has been brought on board.
 
By taking the time to alleviate any apprehension from the team before normal “workday” operations are affected by the presence of a new leader, the team is transformed without taking a toll on productivity.
 
2. Merger/Acquisition
 
When two companies come together through a merger or acquisition, there’s plenty of room for difficulty. Operations and expectations within the two companies will certainly have some variation, and the necessary “transformation” involves finding a new standard that everyone can agree on.
 
Achieving this kind of transformation takes significant preparation, as well as some clear-cut standards for how you want the final, “combined” operations to look like.
 
The change in thinking involves letting go of “the way things used to be” and internalizing the need for operations that meet the new goals of the merged company.

3. Broad Restructuring
 
Sometimes companies have to go through massive changes. It could be an entire shift in products or services offered, an update in systems that affects the entire company, new employee standards, or anything else that impacts many people across different departments.
 
The transformation(s) involved might be as large and complicated as the company changes themselves, but much like in a merger, it’s important that everyone understands and internalizes the need for the changes, and overcomes any resistance they might have to the new ways of doing things.
 
4. Creating New Energy
 
Over time, people can get complacent. They may settle into a less-than-ideal pattern of thinking or behavior, and they need a bit of a transformation to refresh their enthusiasm and/or focus.
 
These kind of transformations will happen a little differently for every team or individual, but no matter what, it’s all about getting down the essential principles the company operates by, and getting everyone excited about their individual contributions – and the successes they can achieve as a group.
 
These are just a few examples that could necessitate the transformations that retreats provide. In any scenario that requires a large-scale change not just to the way employees operate, but also the way they think, transformation is essential.
 
Anil Saxena is the President of Cube 2.14, an organizational development consulting firm that works with clients to increase both customer and employee engagement while decreasing turnover, improving customer retention, and increasing profitability within organizations.

Saxena is a certified High Impact coach and trainer and a Joint Application Design facilitator. He is also certified by both Rush Systems and IBM as a focus group facilitator. He is an inaugural member of Northwestern University’s Learning and Organizational Change program, and he earned his bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering from the Illinois Institute of Technology.

Leadership Follies – Don’t Call It A Program

What’s the best way to make sure leadership development, employee engagement, or any other people initiative will fail?
Call it a program. 
 
Programs are to employees with kryptonite is to Superman. They scream of formalized, over complicated initiatives that may or may not apply to the goals of the group, but must be followed to the letter. Things that are engrained in the culture aren’t called programs…they just happen.
 
Can you imagine (fill in the blank holiday) dinner at Mom’s being a program. No!

WHAT CAN YOU DO TO MAKE SURE THAT EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT DOESN’T TURN INTO ANOTHER PROGRAM:
 
LINK ENGAGEMENT TO BUSINESS OUTCOMES
It is vital that employee engagement (or any people program) be linked DIRECTLY to a business or organizational goal   Without that link, the idea of working on engagement will be akin to using the ab master that was bought at 2:30AM when watching an infomercial.  It sounds like a great idea.  Heck, it even has some science and data behind it.  But no link to business goals = no long term engagement

MAKE ENGAGEMENT PART OF THE CONVERSATION ALL THE TIME

Look for any opportunity to discuss engagement or maybe (gasp) to engage people.  Engagement should be at the forefront of senior leadership communication, part of the objective of every management training and the driving force of every new initiative regarding employees.  Engagement once or twice a year is similar to the new year’s resolution phenomenon.
 

“A New Year’s Resolution is something that goes in one year and comes out the other” – Oscar Wilde.
 
Don’t fall into that trap.  
 
MAKE ENGAGEMENT EASY
Employee Engagement the program is a long hard slog.  It starts with a survey that takes too long to fill out.  Then there are reports and data that are hard to decipher and take months (and months) to see.  Finally, there is some grandiose action that is to be taken based on said results that is supposed to target the “area of opportunity”.  In between there is a little training for managers and a lot of hand wringing to get people to take surveys and turn in action plans.  Why can’t engagement be easy?
 
• Keep the survey short
◦ Don’t have more than 20 questions.  Large unfocused surveys make people believe the organization doesn’t really know what its asking for.  Also, questions that are targeted on what is actionable by managers makes engagement real for everyone
• Get data back to managers and teams within a month or less from the time a survey is taken.
◦ Long periods of time between surveys doesn’t bode well for action.  It also makes people think there is something to hide.  Turn data around quickly to start the conversation
• Give managers constant training
◦ Set up training on a regular basis that managers can access new insight or tools about engagement regularly.  Also, provide a forum for them to share ideas with each other.
• Make action plans living
◦ Put action plans into a system that can be updated and is easily accessible.  Don’t put a lot of restrictions on them either.  Let teams do what they think is best.
• Take action at the organizational level right away
◦ Use aggregate data to put new programs or enhance programs right away and link it to engagement.  Its important for folks to see results right away.
 
What else can be done to shift employee engagement from a program?  How can we make sure that it doesn’t turn into “have to”?

Anil Saxena is the President of Cube 2.14, an organizational development consulting firm that works with clients to increase both customer and employee engagement while decreasing turnover, improving customer retention, and increasing profitability within organizations.

Saxena is a certified High Impact coach and trainer and a Joint Application Design facilitator. He is also certified by both Rush Systems and IBM as a focus group facilitator. He is an inaugural member of Northwestern University’s Learning and Organizational Change program, and he earned his bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering from the Illinois Institute of Technology.

Your Employee Engagement Isn’t Going To Work

“After five years of doing engagement, I’ve not seen a real impact.  The sad part is that I feel like I can predict the results before they happen,” stated a senior level executive.  He looked at me and asked, “Why do we keep doing this?”
 
As a former Gallup consultant, Employee Engagement is near and dear to me.  I have led engagement initiatives and witnessed the power of their impact on organizations.  Yet, far too often I hear this same concern.
 
There has been a great deal written about the power of employee engagement.  After the landmark study that launched employee engagement in Coffman and Buckingham’s First Break All the Rules, there have been hundreds of studies showing the impact of engagement. Every year all of the major employee engagement providers put out their annual “state of the state” regarding engagement.  Each year, there are many examples of companies leveraging engagement to be even more successful – Campbell’s Soup, Toyota, and Apple just to name a few.
 
But, the sad truth is that there are many more examples where employee engagement is not having the impact that it could.
 

“The latest findings indicate that 70% of American workers are ‘not engaged’ or ‘actively disengaged’ and are emotionally disconnected from their workplaces and less likely to be productive. These actively disengaged employees cost the U.S. between $450 billion to $550 billion each year in lost productivity. They are more likely to steal from their companies, negatively influence their coworkers, miss workdays, and drive customers away.” – Gallup State of the American Workplace
 
I discussed why this is so with leaders and employee engagement practitioners. According to them (and my experience) there are three prominent reasons Employee Engagement fails to produce the results intended.
 
ENGAGEMENT NOT CONNECTED TO THE BUSINESS

Time and time again, Employee Engagement is brought into an organization with a great deal of promise.  Senior executives are sold on the notion that Employee Engagement is a panacea that will make their business better, faster, stronger.  That somehow, just by taking this magical survey

1. Employees will sing the praises of the company
2. Customers will line up to buy and will actively sell without compensation
3. Competitors will fall by the wayside
 
Either it is said and executives don’t listen or it is not explicit that just like the ab machine bought on QVC at 2 AM if engagement is not linked to impacting business or organizational goals it will be largely ignored.  Employee Engagement is a powerful measure that can anticipate the performance of an organization.  Unlike revenue or profit or compliance, it is a predictive measure of performance (get quote or link) IF IT IS LINKED TO BUSINESS OUTCOMES.  Just taking the survey, rolling out reports and doing action plans will do little in the long term to impact business results.
 
In order for engagement to have impact, employees can’t just be engaged they have to be engaged to something.  Prior to rolling out an employee engagement survey, there has to be work done to link engagement to some measure that is important to the business.
 

“Researchers studied 49,928 work units, including nearly 1.4 million employees. This latest iteration of the meta-analysis further confirmed the well-established connection between employee engagement and key performance outcomes:
 
• Customer ratings
• Profitability
• Productivity
• Turnover (for high-turnover and low-turnover organizations)
• Safety incidents
• Shrinkage (theft)
• Absenteeism
• Patient safety incidents
• Quality (defects)

Work units in the top quartile in employee engagement outperformed bottom-quartile units by 10% on customer ratings, 22% in profitability, and 21% in productivity. Work units in the top quartile also saw significantly less turnover (25% in high-turnover organizations and 65% in low-turnover organizations), shrinkage (28%), and absenteeism (37%) and fewer safety incidents (48%), patient safety incidents (41%), and quality defects (41%).” – Gallup Business Journal

 
Any of these measures can be linked to engagement because what impacts them the most is PEOPLE.  But without that causal link, eventually engagement will be a “program” that managers and leaders “have to do”.  There will be less and less emphasis put on it.  Eventually leaders will only give it lip service.  Then a new Employee Engagement vendor will be selected and the cycle will start anew.
 
HR IS ADMINISTRATOR, OWNER AND CHAMPION OF EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT

HR is the very best place for Employee Engagement to “live”.  However, HR being its owner and champion is misplaced.  In order to ensure that Employee Engagement carries its required weight, the owner must be a senior leader from the business, preferably someone that is in charge of a revenue generating part of the organization.  It is impossible for HR to be administrator, facilitator, coach AND enforcer.  At some point those roles will be indistinguishable.
 
In order for Employee Engagement to be seen as a business initiative, it has to be owned by the business.  It also means they are accountable for its success.  But, a business leader won’t take on owning an initiative that isn’t tied to business outcomes they care about.  Hence the reason #1 is so important.
 
EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT IS AN EVENT NOT A MINDSET

The drumbeat from thought leaders in Employee Engagement is it cannot be a “once a year event”.  It is doomed to insignificance if the focus is on survey, report and action plan.  That makes it a program with checkoffs.  It undermines the most important part, conversation.  Employee engagement must be a mindset.
 

“Employee engagement will not thrive when it’s handled like an event. But when it is vigilantly cultivated and purposefully spread through the interactions between managers and employees, it becomes a way of working. It becomes part of a company’s culture.” – Shawn Murphy (@shawmu)
 
The survey and all that is part of it are only a portion of actually creating an engaged workplace.  It is not enough to talk about engagement or promote being more engaged.  Developing an engaged workforce takes ENGAGING THEM.
 
Employee engagement has been proven to improve organizational performance.  What is your organization doing to increase the impact of Employee Engagement?
 
Anil Saxena is the President of Cube 2.14, an organizational development consulting firm that works with clients to increase both customer and employee engagement while decreasing turnover, improving customer retention, and increasing profitability within organizations.

Saxena is a certified High Impact coach and trainer and a Joint Application Design facilitator. He is also certified by both Rush Systems and IBM as a focus group facilitator. He is an inaugural member of Northwestern University’s Learning and Organizational Change program, and he earned his bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering from the Illinois Institute of Technology.

Leadership Follies – What’s In A Title?

There’s an odd trend going on in way too many companies these days: giving employees new titles – without changing much else. Time and time again, this results in all sorts of dissatisfaction, dissent, losses in productivity, and huge blows to company morale.

What are these companies doing wrong?

The typical rollout of these changes is sloppy at best.  I recently worked with a client who made some very critical mistakes. In an effort to create some leadership roles, some employees were given a new title with the word “senior” attached. There was no change in pay, and no change in responsibility or reporting structure. The change was restricted to a title only – and people hated it.

For the employees granted this “senior” distinction, there wasn’t really any incentive to be happy about the change – it came as a surprise (which means that they weren’t at all involved in the planning stages), and without an increase in wage or clout, it came off as ultimately pointless.

For the rest of the staff not given this “senior” title, the change was downright offensive. They were given no reasoning for who received the new titles and who didn’t, they weren’t warned about or walked through the process, and because there wasn’t any real structural change, not getting the new title felt like a slight.
 

For everyone involved, there was no clear benefit.
 
But here’s the real problem: these unfavorable reactions actually served to reduce productivity and company morale because these employees, whether they got the new title or not, were distracted and confused by the change. It gave them something to worry about, to be angry over. It made them reconsider their roles within the company.
 
And while all of this is happening, the actual work that needs to be done suffers tremendously.

In trying to establish some leadership, this company managed to undermine their own goals – and show themselves as fairly incapable leaders in the process. They learned a few valuable lessons about change:
 
–       It has to serve a measurable, explainable purpose
–       It can only happen successfully with the support of the employees themselves
–       Failure to recognize these necessities will almost certainly make existing problems worse
 
Don’t run these same risks in your business. If you’re going to implement a change, make sure it has a tangible goal behind it, and make sure you’ve got the support you need to make it stick.

Anil Saxena is the President of Cube 2.14, an organizational development consulting firm that works with clients to increase both customer and employee engagement while decreasing turnover, improving customer retention, and increasing profitability within organizations.

Saxena is a certified High Impact coach and trainer and a Joint Application Design facilitator. He is also certified by both Rush Systems and IBM as a focus group facilitator. He is an inaugural member of Northwestern University’s Learning and Organizational Change program, and he earned his bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering from the Illinois Institute of Technology.

Clinging To The Past

Somewhere along the way, most of us developed some kind of identity. Whether it was through a social group, and achievement, an activity, or any of a number of possible avenues, people tend to have a certain framework for how they see themselves.
The same can be true for companies – somewhere along the timeline, an identity was established, and just like people, that sense of identity has a way of perpetuating itself.

While this isn’t necessarily a bad thing, what happens when that identity is challenged, or needs to change?


Far too often, an identity is held so closely that it becomes a barrier to progress and growth – but why? What are people so afraid of?

For some, it might be some sense of past glory, of holding on to a time when they felt on top of the world, and the thought of facing a new reality is too much to bear. For others, it may be a sense of embarrassment, that they’ve established themselves in a particular way, and they assume that they will be frowned upon by their peers for deviating from familiar patterns.

These social shortcomings can be reflected throughout a business as well, when those in leadership roles feel that they can’t change a company’s identity for fear of scrutiny or refusal to admit that times have changed.
 
But change is akin to growth for both businesses and individuals. Adapting to new circumstances, moving into new markets, rolling with the punches, and rising to challenges are all part of the process. When companies (and the people who operate them) are not willing to adapt, they are stunting themselves and any potential for progress.
 

Changing parts of an identity is scary – and understandably so. It takes courage to admit that you didn’t have it all figured out, that your old ways aren’t necessarily applicable today.
 
We have this tendency to hold onto our past selves as if it were some kind of lifeline, instead of seeking to grow into the realities we face moving forward. This is both counterproductive and counterintuitive. For the strongest identity (for both individuals and brands), we can’t be afraid to reevaluate and restructure to reflect our current understanding of the world.
 
Is there a more admirable identity than being adaptable to change?
 
The lessons learned and characteristics formed in the past are certainly an important part of any identity, but clinging to them too closely does little but make a relic of a person or company, and leaves absolutely zero room for improvement.

Anil Saxena is the President of Cube 2.14, an organizational development consulting firm that works with clients to increase both customer and employee engagement while decreasing turnover, improving customer retention, and increasing profitability within organizations.

Saxena is a certified High Impact coach and trainer and a Joint Application Design facilitator. He is also certified by both Rush Systems and IBM as a focus group facilitator. He is an inaugural member of Northwestern University’s Learning and Organizational Change program, and he earned his bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering from the Illinois Institute of Technology.

The Most Important List For Leaders, Managers & Employees

In our blog-driven, online world, list-based articles are everywhere. Search for just about anything and you’ll come up with dozens of “X Reasons for Y” and “X Things to Incorporate Into Your Business.”
 
All of these lists are telling you some arbitrary number of ways to boost profits, to engage employees, increase productivity, whatever – but what makes them the “top” reasons? What scales are we measuring against? Who decided these were the best?
 
Sure, these lists are interesting, and provide all sorts of great starting points and ideas for positive change. They can even introduce new principles that the reader may never have thought of, but there are still a couple of massive shortcomings.
 
If these lists were effective, why does Gallup still report that 70% of US employees are “not engaged” or “actively disengaged” at work? There’s an obvious gap between information and its intended goals.
So what are these lists missing? How about a list!?!

1. Action
 
A list of a dozen weight loss tips isn’t going to going to get you to the gym or making healthier food, just like a list of ways to boost engagement isn’t going to walk you through the steps of rolling it out to your company. You’d be expected to find a different list for tips on getting into action!
 
2. Complexity
 
This is pretty directly related to #1 – our culture demands that we boil things down into these easily digestible lists, and in doing so, we remove all the space necessary for detailed explanation, for useful information about turning tips into real practices.
 
Real life is way more complicated than any Top 5 list will ever lead you to believe. Those tips won’t work for everyone, and even if they did, the topics are so quickly glossed over that the takeaway is a snippet at best. Assuming that some predetermined, “best” list is going to solve our problems is both foolish and dangerous. It lulls us into thinking that dealing with people and solving problems is easy.
 
It most certainly is not.
 
Human beings, the businesses they run, the groups and habits they form, and all of the other things that these lists try to simplify are terribly complex, and that’s also the source of our greatness.
So what can we do?
 
Well, there certainly isn’t a simple answer (and if you were expecting one, that’s the damage that “list” articles are doing right there in front of you…), but maybe understanding that is the first place to start.
 
We’ve got to stop compartmentalizing and stripping down. We’ve got to embrace a little complexity and start looking at the dynamic relationships between multiple causes and effects. There’s no way that the “Top 10 Reasons” for one company are going to work for another, at least not exactly. Once we can start to realize that blanket solutions and easy fixes are nothing but pacifiers and pipe dreams, maybe we can actually get some work done.
 
Let’s stop breaking things into lists of their simplest parts, and instead challenge ourselves to understand the complexity.

Anil Saxena is the President of Cube 2.14, an organizational development consulting firm that works with clients to increase both customer and employee engagement while decreasing turnover, improving customer retention, and increasing profitability within organizations.

Saxena is a certified High Impact coach and trainer and a Joint Application Design facilitator. He is also certified by both Rush Systems and IBM as a focus group facilitator. He is an inaugural member of Northwestern University’s Learning and Organizational Change program, and he earned his bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering from the Illinois Institute of Technology.

Maybe WIIFM Is Wrong

Could the emphasis on What’s in It for Me (WIIFM) be a contributing factor to the huge number of change initiatives that fail to meet their intended outcomes?
 
Does emphasizing WIIFM convince people that there has to be something in it FOR THEM in everything?  Employees, customers, shareholders, etc. look for the benefit to them. But, maybe the benefit will be in their team, family, community, etc.  The notion that every project or initiative has to have an outcome that benefits each person is a recipe for disaster.

WHY?
 
1. People will not be interested in putting effort or making concessions for something that doesn’t benefit them if they’ve been trained to expect something out of each project.  So, if the project you are working on isn’t going to benefit them directly, most people will say “thanks but no thanks”

2. Everyone is looking for the immediate gratification – There are efforts that need to be done that will have long-term benefits but nothing immediately.  Because of the focus on WIIFM patience for longer term successes/benefits is low.

3. People will balk at necessary actions – Sometimes things need to get done because they need to get done and won’t benefit some groups.  But, they will make the company stronger or save it from some calamity (competition, regulation violation, etc.).  But, if you are always focusing on WIIFM then why would someone want to do that?

4. People have a misguided belief that there has to be a WIIFM in everything – It’s not always about you.  In life, we have to make sacrifices and do things that don’t directly benefit us at all.  But they must be done.
 
Of course organizations must take on initiatives that benefit their key stakeholders – employees, customers, shareholders, etc.  But, there are times that for the sake of the business or institutions actions must be taken that don’t have a WIIFM.

GUNS VS. BUTTER

During WWII, Americans rationed everything for the war effort.  It was a concept called “guns or butter”.  Essentially, you could have more guns and stuff on the front line for our troops or we could have ample food, steel, oil, etc. at home BUT YOU COULD NOT HAVE BOTH.
 
The effort that people went through in America (and almost every other country in the world at that time) during that time was for the greater good.  There was not really a WIIFM or at least it was delayed.  But if you look at the wars that have occurred since, Americans have expected guns AND butter.  For the most part, that has not worked well for anyone.  The same is true in organizations.  You can’t always have WIIFM and organizational success.  It can happen.  When it’s possible it should. But, when it’s not, there should be rationale given about:

• The greater good of the organization
• Increase in customers base
• Growth in market share
• Or something else that will benefit the greater good.

(Now, if there is no long term benefit or benefit to the organization AND not WIIFM, than that’s not good either. All those projects/initiatives should be scrapped too)
 
It’s time for us to recognize that projects need to be beneficial but they may not have a “win” for each person impacted and that is okay.  If it’s a win for the organization and the greater good, maybe that is good enough….
 
Anil Saxena is the President of Cube 2.14, an organizational development consulting firm that works with clients to increase both customer and employee engagement while decreasing turnover, improving customer retention, and increasing profitability within organizations.

Saxena is a certified High Impact coach and trainer and a Joint Application Design facilitator. He is also certified by both Rush Systems and IBM as a focus group facilitator. He is an inaugural member of Northwestern University’s Learning and Organizational Change program, and he earned his bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering from the Illinois Institute of Technology.

FIND A SOLUTION

Cube 2.14 will increase your organizational effectiveness. We specialize in developing innovative, practical solutions to create productive workplaces that exceed goals.