Finding "Flow"

Lately as you have probably noticed I have been talking and blogging a lot about things like sprezzatura and congruency. I think perhaps as the title of this piece implies I am pining to find my "flow".

Seth Godin, Daniel Pink and others talk about flow, that place where everything is clicking and hours just seem to disappear. It may happen at work, when you are enjoying an athletic activity, or the company of others. We have all experienced it and it is what "brings us back".

I kind of like to think of engagement as flow on an organizational level. Groups of people who become immersed in what we are doing and enjoying it to the point that the processes and the results blur. We see the value and the values alignment and so we provide our discretionary effort, that last bit that puts us over the top.

I don't think that organizations or individuals can maintain a state of flow constantly, but I think we can provide environments where we see it and experience it frequently. As I allude to I think it is much more about providing an environment than "direction".

Godin describes that each of us has our "art" embedded" in us somewhere. It doesn't mean we were born to paint or make music or even be a crafts person of some kind, but there is something we were born to do.

I think I like like Godin because of two primary reasons above others:

• Like me he feels like Frederick W. Taylor, the "father" of scientific management, contributed to a model that has repressed the human spirit for multiple generations
• He is one of the only other authors I have read of late that actually draws upon and and mentions Monty Roberts, the original "horse whisperer", and his concept of "joining up" rather than compliance as a model for interpersonal and organizational relationships.

As you know I feel like concepts like lean manufacturing, six sigma, and others are inherently self limiting because they do not take into account the "human" dimension. You don't see anywhere in those models where they talk about art or flow or sprezzatura. It is about consistency and numbers and process. Probably makes my friend Frederick Taylor orgasmic in his grave!

I am pleased when I see that the younger generations are demanding more of the opportunity to find "flow". They call it different things like work life balance, and autonomy, or others; but at the root they are seeking if not demanding environments that provide them with at least that opportunity.

So I guess at the end of the day whether you want to call it "flow", or sprezzatura, or congruency, or engagement why are we so afraid of it? The "numbers" show that how ever you label it the results in key performance areas are vastly superior to the "old" ways of doing things.

Isn't it time to embrace a new model- especially when we can see the "proof in the pudding"?

The Right Fit

A lot of you are probably tired of hearing about my ongoing love affair with the concept of engagement. Sorry I just can't help myself, it's my passion.

In my last post I talked about a couple of people who have made a deep and lasting impression on me even though they were quite different. I still think about those two people and others I have encountered that were similar. These people don't seem to spend a lot of time in that "uncertainty" zone wondering what their role or motivation is or should be. They are aligned.

I read a couple of things today that I found interesting. One was from a colleague who I respect a great deal talking about whether or not organizations should accept or even embrace their role in providing structure in a world confronted with a lot of ambiguity. His question was around social context and whether employers should play a proactive, reactive, or neutral role in creating and/or managing social relationships related to the workplace.

My response, perhaps naively, was that if you embrace a philosophy of engagement a certain amount of this need to "affiliate" will be met organically. If you share values and a sense of commitment with your colleagues the "membership" component will occur somewhat naturally. The employer will need to provide some boundary management and be sure that the approach is broad rather than prescriptive, but shouldn't have to artificially bring people together.
By prescriptive I mean being too structured as to what engagement looks like or must be practiced.

I find organized religion to be a little "prescriptive". Three of the largest religions in the world; Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are all "people of the book", but we fight wars over the "right" way to practice it. I don't really get it.

Another colleague posted a very different question about the relative difficulty of coaching someone from "incompetence to mediocrity" versus "good to great". My reaction was "Why would you want to coach someone to a career pinnacle of mediocrity?" Where is the value to the person or the organization. Perhaps I am being hypocritical, I play golf badly, but I enjoy it as a hobby recognizing that Tiger (even with his current distractions) need never feel threatened. Golf is a hobby, not a career.

If you look at the single biggest reasons for "failure" in the employment environment they are around "fit" not technical competence. The numbers are pretty scary too- exceeding 30% at the C level and even higher at lower levels. How many of us know colleagues who are "living quiet lives of desperation" performing a job where they are not very engaged or frankly a great fit. I feel for these people even though by some measures they are "successful".

Maybe I just continue to be contemplative because of the recent events of my role models. Maybe it is the season. Maybe this "fit" thing is overrated. What do you think?