Month: August 2015

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.
 

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.

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.

Why do people downplay their contributions? Something about the modern day rat race has turned many employees (and managers) into habitual preservers of the status quo – nobody wants to rock the boat.

The culture has turned from a focus on innovation to little more than survival mode. Restrictive policy, tough job markets, and the less-than-effective middle management have taught much of the workforce (including those in leadership roles) to simply stay in line, follow instructions, and carry on business as usual.

This type of thinking, of course, destroys creative thinking, and prevents progress and fresh ideas in companies of any industry.
 
So what can leaders (and really, every employee) do about it?

The first step is to own your impact.

This means seeing your individual involvement in the task at hand, your department, and your entire company. It means owning up to both your accomplishments and your mistakes, and taking full credit for both.
 
Owning your impact is recognizing the unique contribution you can make to any situation, and understanding that without the bravery to offer up ideas, to propose solutions, or to simply offer constructive feedback on a process or policy, there can never be forward progress.
 
When people lose sight of their own potential for positive influence, they feel impotent – and when policies reward adherence to the rulebook and restrict open mindedness, employees are placed under a huge burden: it takes every ounce of energy to trudge through outdated processes and not speak out against them.

Without a widespread recognition of individual contribution, employees simply become cogs in a machine. Even if they have brilliant ideas, they’ve been trained to squash them – all because it would disrupt the status quo.

So leaders, no matter what industry you might be a part of, own your impact, and encourage everyone you manage to own theirs as well. Recognizing the insight that each member of a team can bring to the table is the first step in generating great new ideas, and ultimately, making changes that improve company productivity and employee engagement/satisfaction.

Empowered employees are happy and productive employees. Impotent and burdened employees are precisely the opposite. Which would you rather have?

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.