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?

In Search of.....?

I have always found August to be kind of an interesting month. I am naturally restless so I struggle with it. I like the fact that it is summer, but the fact business seems to slow to a crawl drives me crazy sometimes. I have too much time to spend questioning myself and my purpose.

I read an interesting book this weekend, The Geography of Bliss, by Eric Weiner. The author, who is a self professed "grump" charted his journey through a number of countries ranging from Bhutan to Moldova and the U.S. in search of what defines and creates happiness for people. It is a pretty interesting book that demonstrates that the correlation between standard of living, weather, and other factors is not nearly as absolute as we would think. It would seem that Maslow had it right.

The importance of relationships between people was a constant recurring theme. People and cultures with a strong relationship network are generally happier. When the author posed the question of whether or not there was a higher "state" of evolution than happiness to an Indian guru, the guru responded that love and relationships are indeed higher.

The other thing that was profound was the relationship between doing something you perceive as having a purpose you can personally align with had on happiness or contentment. I know it is critically important to me, is was interesting to have it "validated". It was also interesting that being able to share that purpose with others by talking about it or literally sharing the activity is very important as well. It would seem happiness is rarely solitary.

It was also interesting that happiness needs polarity. Happiness without sadness or emotional "pain" becomes vanilla or complacency. People who pursue things vigorously enjoy the benefits of both "poles" more than those who navigate only smooth waters.

Probably the most interesting place he visited to me was Iceland. It is dark and cold there a lot, it is a relatively small geographical area, but has a very high "happiness" index. I particularly liked the Icelandic perspective that experimenting with multiple careers and interests is encouraged, not based on your "talent", but rather your passion. Since I seem prone to reinventing myself perhaps that is why it resonates with me. Sounds like the Icelanders where embracing and celebrating "whole people" long before I began pursuing it.

So in the dog days of August I leave you with these reflections-

• Relationships really are important
• Doing what you love may bring you more happiness than doing what you excel at
• Sharing your passions and interests seems to multiply rather than diminish them
• Happiness without pain or sadness is like love without passion, a little bland

What do you think...?

Building A Foundation of Trust

Over the last few months I have had an opportunity to "virtually meet" some brilliant and amazing people using LinkedIn and other social networks. I have gotten to explore some interesting topics of my own and respond to a number from others.
I have long believed that people need to be managed "holistically", that is we need to appreciate and try to understand them in their entirety rather than just their "work" persona to effectively engage them.
I have also pondered throughout my career how we expected to create customer engagement without first creating engagement with our employees. I have read volumes about measuring engagement and increasing shareholder/stakeholder value, but not nearly as much about building those relationships with our employees. I have to ask myself why we think we can leave them (employees) out of the equation? It is also interesting to me that although much of management practice is based on withholding trust by retaining control, limiting information flow, etc.; we expect trust to flow our way by virtue of our role or status.

Two of my colleagues that have particularly made a profound impression on me have both emigrated to the U.S. from different cultures. They have learned a new language and a new way of interacting to be successful in this market. Both are very committed to building a bridge across cultures, not as a commercial enterprise, but as a moral obligation. While they don't know each other, they both resonate with a similar value structure.

We have started to work together to use engagement as a leadership model and as a vehicle to build that bridge. We have also discussed that the foundation for engagement is trust based relationships.
In my mind trust based relationships share some common characteristics:

• Mutual respect for others as people
• Clear and honest feedback
• A view of plenty rather than scarcity when it comes to success and rewards
• An absence of fear in the work environment
• Information that flows freely and efficiently
• Integrity
• Leadership by example

I recognize that my list isn't all inclusive, but I like to think that the major elements are there. I would be curious to get your feedback on two things:

• Is true engagement our opportunity to build sustained cross cultural collaboration?
• What is missing from my foundation?

I look forward to your thoughts.