A Real Paradigm Shift

Every once in a while you get to experience a real paradigm shift.

A number of years ago I had an opportunity to attend a presentation/demonstration by Monty Roberts the "Horse Whisperer". If you are familiar with horse training vernacular you know that for the last couple of hundred years the technique of training horses has been referred to as "breaking" the horse. In short to teach the horse to "comply" with our will and instruction. Roberts discussed some things that were pretty intriguing to me. The fact that horses are both a herd and a "prey animal". Their primary reaction to threats is to flee. The herd part of their instinct is that they are essentially programmed to "join up" with others rather than attempt to go it alone. With that in mind he proposed a different methodology- rather than "breaking" the horse why not extend an invitation to the horse to "join up" with you and become part of your herd? In the space of a little over an hour I saw a horse that had never been ridden accept a saddle, bridle, and rider. That is a paradigm shift!

Because of what I do my mind immediately went to my own experiences with people and organizations. What if we were to offer an opportunity to employees to "join up" with us rather than try to impose our organizational values or even our personal values for those of us that lead and manage teams? That became part of the fabric of my model of moving from compliance to commitment.

This week I had the opportunity to be exposed to another profound paradigm shift by a brilliant colleague. This model identifies behavioral "channels" in the subconscious mind and allows you to "retrain" the channel to create opportunities for profound and sustained changes in the behavior of individuals and teams. By creating the new "channel" you are allowing them to join up rather than imposing your model or view.

I am not confident or competent enough to discuss this model in detail at this stage, but I assure you you will be hearing more from me on this topic as I understand it and its application.

Thank you Reut for sharing your brilliance and your vision with me and the others. I am very excited about seeing where this new paradigm takes us... What new "paradigms" are you open to exploring?

Where Does Engagement "Live"?

I am very pleased to see interest in topics like employee engagement and employment branding gaining some momentum, even if it is just in dialogue.

I have to pay an homage to the people at BlessingWhite for their recent studies and research and Dr's Whitlark and Rhoads for their publication about the "Spillover" effect which provides concrete relationships and data; drawing a direct correlation between high engagement and key performance indicators like sustainability, productivity, and profitability. This is no longer "warm and fuzzy" stuff, but rather hard data.

I do continue to see that for all the dialogue I am still disappointed with the number of organizations and C level executives that are either ignoring this opportunity (some would say crisis) or paying lip service to it.

There are a couple of other things coming out about engagement that I have long believed that I am pleased to see gaining some traction as well:

• Defining engagement. This a a huge area. Engagement is not happiness or employee satisfaction. Much like compensation the lack of happiness or satisfaction can have a negative affect on engagement, but "happy" or "satisfied" employees are not necessarily engaged. The basic reason for that is that the work place may be providing an outlet for social relationships or other things that employees enjoy that affect those areas, but don't lead to additional productivity or discretionary effort. Measuring those other things doesn't necessarily yield engagement.
• Creating engagement. The other thing we are starting to recognize is that engagement is not an initiative or program it is a culture! To create and sustain an engaged workforce and long term employment brand you must create and sustain a culture.

I think that these "revelations" may be part of what is keeping many organizations from embracing an engagement strategy or employment brand- they aren't prepared to do the work.

The last thing I want to share today is my response to the opening question. In my opinion engagement and your brand live at the front line level of your organization. I am not saying that senior management support and role modeling aren't critical, but how many of your customers or employees interact regularly with C level management?

How many of us encounter Howard Schultz when we visit Starbucks or Steve Jobs at the Apple store?

My point is you must build engagement into your brand through your selection, hiring, training, and performance management and reward systems. I would go further and say that your front line managers are your greatest potential asset or weakness. In fact Whitlark and Rhoads are even more specific;

"One bad manager can pollute multiple levels of an organization, and poor managers bring down employee morale, which spills over into the engagement level of customers.”

My point being that your "engagement" or "branding" effort must be embraced as a culture change and you have to be willing to "de-recruit" employees especially managers who can not or will not make the transition. My experience has been validated by James L. Heskett, author of the book The Service-Profit Chain, who writes-

“… the hardest concept is the deployment of the culture change …which requires that organizations identify values, behaviors, and measures that help reinforce the service profit chain relationships. But it also requires actions. That is when managers are not managing by the values and cannot be admonished or retrained to do so (which rarely works), they have to go.”

So I guess what I am saying is that engagement is mutual commitment and while it is important to have brand champions in the C suite you will be most successful when you embed it into the fabric of your organization because engagement and your brand live on the "ground floor" where your employees interact with your customers. As my colleague Joseph Skursky so elegantly states, Hire Hard- Manage Easy. You will find it a better long term strategy.

Mandate or Mistake?

Why do I suspect that I was not the only person to be surprised by President Obama's selection as the latest recipient of the Nobel Peace prize? I have to admit I am still processing my reaction.

The reaction from the "right" is pretty typical, the award indicates how shallow the world is, recognizes Obama's "star" power, but little else etc. Are we in the U.S missing something that the rest of the world sees? Did we miss and continue to miss how polarizing the actions of the last administration were in how the world saw us?

From my own personal context I do see this award as a bit "proactive" if not premature, but at the same time I have often heard that "good" managers use recognition reactively, while great managers use it proactively to create an environment for even greater performance.

What a change to see the U.S seen as a beacon again. We can ask ourselves whether or not given some of our domestic issues that this is where we should concentrate, but is there room on the agenda for both? To those that are critical have we given this President a reasonable time to create meaningful change, he has been in office nine months. In that nine months he has definitely created a profound effect in how the world sees the United States. Maybe not a bad start.

Barrack Obama may be the most polarizing President since Lincoln. When I read some of the diatribes about him I wonder how it is that he has created such fear and agitation in such a short time. We still have leadership of the other party claiming or a least condoning claims that he isn't an American citizen and is a secret Muslim. Are they that afraid of the potential change he represents? I don't have any issue with disagreeing with a candidate or even voting for the other "guy", but do we have to demonize?

Perhaps this award represents the "audacity of hope", not only for the United States, but for the world. To me it speaks of the yearning of a lot of people for a different way of interacting together in a collaborative fashion.

There are a lot of scary things going on right now. The situation in the Middle East is far from resolved and we still have miles to go before we have repaired the fundamental infrastructure of own society on issues including health care and employment. In our President's defense, he didn't create any of those issues he inherited them.

I am an optimist by nature. I am going to interpret the award as a mandate and a sign of hope that the President will continue to grow into his role as both a domestic and world leader and will contribute to leaving the country and the world a better place when he leaves office then when he found it. I do not and will not always agree with everything he does, but as is my nature and my imperative I will withhold judgment and try to evaluate the "whole person" that he represents.

To those that want to reject the award I caution that is what has characterized us in the world for a long time, incapable of recognizing and accepting others right to see things from a different perspective. We don't have to agree, but do we need to impose our viewpoint or ridicule that of others we disagree with?

I would be curious to hear your reactions, especially those from the international community.