Dealing With Whole People

The past couple of weeks have been interesting to me. Sometimes I find myself to be more of an observer than a participant in things and my observations really stay with and sometimes trouble me.

A week ago today was Father's Day. As I get older the value of being a father and the significance of my children take on more and more meaning to me. We have kind of a tradition. My father in law, brother in law, and I celebrate Father's Day at least partially together. A big part of that is the recognition of the joy it gives my father in law to be surrounded by his children and grandchildren. My own father passed away several years ago, but I recall how much it meant to him. 2009 has been for me, like many others a tumultuous period to date. I can say that when I look at my children and what they have accomplished and the promise I see in their future it gives me a renewed sense of purpose.

My father and I did not always enjoy a cordial relationship. I am very glad to have the relationship with my children that I do. I respect them as people and as young adults and as a result we talk pretty openly and honestly. I hope that continues.

I watched the elections in Iran over the last two weeks as well. I was disappointed by the results, but heartened by the number of Iranians who voted their conscience and had the courage to openly express their sense of betrayal at the process. I am perplexed by the reaction of many Americans as to the role we should play in the process. We are currently engaged in civil wars in two different Muslim countries where to a great extent we were not invited and I am not sure we are welcome. Some would say that our "influence" in Pakistan is equally resented.

I find the newly "re-elected" President of Iran to be a petty tyrant and a demagogue of the first order, but do we really have the right or the need to insert ourselves in yet another countries electoral processes without invitation? When W won the election against Gore, a decision some would say was decided in the Supreme Court, did any other country threaten to invade us to "fix" the process?

One of the last things I find perplexing is our continuing fixation with Michael Jackson. I consider him almost a contemporary. We are essentially the same age and I have found his music at least on the periphery of my awareness since I was an adolescent. He was a gifted song writer and choreographer, but he was also a tortured soul with a lot of dysfunction surrounding him. The last several days the press seems obsessed with rehashing everything about him.

He was an entertainer, not a statesman. His personal life was an episode of the bizarre. Why with all of the other real issues surrounding us are we obsessed with him. Farrah Fawcett was a beautiful woman whose depth and dignity seemed to grow as she matured. She died from a horrible illness that didn't seem to be correlated to her life style. She has been almost a footnote.

I just read a couple of interesting opposing issues on one of my favorite websites- BNET.com. One of them is dealing with managing the whole person that is your employees; recognizing and cultivating their hidden talents and creating opportunities for them to utilize these abilities to your mutual benefit. The other is about why CEOs and other powerful people don't use social networking; because they are so powerful and so connected they don't need to, social networking is for those of us who are seeking validation.

I find that interesting to the point of amusement. Our current President seems to value the idea of connection and social networking; both as a candidate, and in his elected capacity.

My research and experience tells me that true engagement is one of the most powerful tools that organizations have at their disposal to improve their performance in every critical area and that only 30% of organizations in the world have a formal engagement strategy. I also read daily that trust in organizations, especially senior executives is at historic lows. Two of our mainstay industries; financial services and the automotive industry are relying on government bailouts to survive and much of the public is baying for the blood of their senior management.

Although it is very popular with consumers,health care industry professionals and others find a public health care model unacceptable. Good thing their network has their "back" and they don't need to rely on social networking or related media to make their case.

A lot of stuff in here I know. I will continue to try to understand and appreciate people one at a time and to build relationships. It is what I know and what I trust.

Is There A Rainbow Behind This Cloud?

As some of you may have noticed I posted a question on LinkedIn about our focus on leadership as opposed to management last week. More specifically I asked whether or not we were focused on leadership to the exclusion or minimization of management. Needless to say I got pretty good response to my inquiry.

A few people "educated" me as to the difference between leadership and management. Although I feel I recognize the differences between the two I appreciate the insight and feedback that people provided to me. Others challenged my assertion that we needed to focus on management as opposed to leadership and discussed the "leadership" void we find ourselves in in some many elements of our society, but especially it would appear in government and industry.

In candor I wasn't taking a position that we need management rather than leadership. My point is that both sets of skills are essential in a high functioning organization.

Marcus Buckingham has said that the most critical role of leadership is to create and reinforce organizational clarity. I agree with him. He states that clarity is the most important attribute of leadership; not charisma, technical ability, presence, or any of those other ethereal qualities we ascribe to and pine for in our leaders.

Richard Rumelt of UCLA says that the most important role of management is to remove ambiguity for employees. To create a direct personal connection of the tasks and activities we expect them to perform in support of the organizational mission. The CEO does that at a very high level for the whole organization, managers do that for their employees.

As a practicing human resources professional and consultant for almost 30 years I can tell you that both the "vision" and the removal of ambiguity are critical. People need clear expectations, constructive feedback, and ongoing coaching on a personal level. Charismatic leadership will not replace that.

There is some potential good news. Harvard Business School professor Bill George says that our current economic crisis may be both the wake up call and the catalyst for creating a new generation of leaders. He states, "... this new group will build organizations that produces long lasting value for employees and customers, not short sighted strategies focused on 'shareholder' value. Rewards will be for performance, not transactions."

Maybe I am reading into it too much , but that sounds a lot like engagement to me. If you look at where we are in the financial crisis I would submit that much of it derives from that focus on transactions not performance.

A colleague of mine who is focusing her energies in the criticality of trust in creating high performance cultures has been somewhat a victim of the "transactional" mindset. Her potential clients want to see statistical "evidence" of the link between trust and performance. They want a transaction process, not a relationship. I defy anyone to show me an organization with long term sustained high performance that has not created true engagement and didn't build that on a foundation of trust!

I recognize that there are organizations that have enjoyed a level of "transactional" success through the utilization of down sizing, outsourcing, and other "cost" based tactics; but now that we have run out of emerging economies to exploit and operate in a global economy how is that working for them?

I see questions on LinkedIn and other sites seeking the "technological" solution to creating engagement; guess what, there isn't one!

As my colleagues in LinkedIn pointed out to me we desperately need a new "leadership" model that has elements of both those ethereal qualities and heroes that we seek, but also the competencies of effective management. We also need a new value proposition based on relationship, not transactions. We need that between employee and employer, supplier and customer, and citizen and community. Transactions; creating short term value at the expense of others, is what got us here. The old solutions aren't relevant and simply won't work. So what do I suggest:

• Respect
• Personal responsibility
• Shared information
• Equitable rewards
• Mutual loyalty

Hmmm, sounds a lot like relationships based on trust on mutual benefit doesn't it. Who knows, maybe it will catch on.

Tell Me A Story......

For those of you that are on LinkedIn you know that I was working on a presentation for a group of executives on the topic of Web 2.0 or "social networking".

I had the opportunity to share my thoughts with the group yesterday, so now I am taking the opportunity to share my perspective with you and seek your perspective.

In short, social networking is about relationships and trust, not about technology!

I want to state for the record that I am certainly no tech whiz (I type with two fingers). I am no "hipster" as I am a 52 year old white guy.

The reason I say tell me a story is because I believe that social networking is going back to the future. Once upon a time there was no media, no newspapers, and very few books. In fact the vast part of the population was illiterate, and the controlling powers liked it that way.

We relied on an "oral" tradition. We passed along stories and legends from one person to another. We relied on relationships. I would submit that social networking is a return to that model, passing along information to each other.

As I have talked, written and blogged about the need for a new social contract I have consistently talked about three foundational concepts:

• Engagement is a far superior environment to any other in a business or organizational setting.
• The foundation of all meaningful organizational systems is relationships between people.
• Trust is the essential element of functional relationships and engagement.

The bottom line is you will never have engaged relationships with your employees, your customers, or your community without trust. Much of the "new" generations have lost trust in our current relationship infrastructure and models.

Management expert Gary Hamel indicates that among other things the "Facebook" generations embrace a number of new "principles" that you need to be aware of:

• Contribution counts for more than "credentials"
• Hierarchies are natural not prescribed.
• Power comes from sharing information not hoarding it.
• Opinions compound and are "peer" reviewed.
• Users can veto most policy decisions.

If you take a look at these things they represent pretty profound differences from how management and leadership is taught and practiced. To quote popular songwriter John Mayer (for those of you unfamiliar with his music he was the guy that "dumped" both Jennifer Anniston and Jessica Simpson, if neither of them is familiar to you then you live in a cave so it doesn't matter) "when they own the information they can twist it all they want".

And we do; the biggest concern about social networking I hear from members of the "greatest generation" and "boomers" is "how do I control what they say about me on blogs, etc?" the answer is you don't! You participate and contribute you don't control.

When I created my compliance to commitment model the third "pillar" is information. It is critical and the emerging generations have unprecedented access to it. Social networking is also based on the most powerful force in the universe (in my opinion), the power of relationships.

When you have heard me talk about the "new" engagement model you have seen the five levels described by BlessingWhite:

• Satisfaction
• Loyalty
• Recommendation
• Best Product/Practices
• Excitement and Pride

At the risk of being overly simplistic, I don't think you can create the higher levels without creating a relationship.

When you see how social networks describe those relationships they use words like "friend" and "connection". There is an implication of trust and shared experience.

For me when I write, blog, and speak it is always with that intent; to build and sustain relationships and trust. To inform, to share, and to solicit other viewpoints and perspectives.

So I will leave you with a couple of thoughts;

• Engagement is the most powerful tool that organizations have to increase productivity, profitability, and sustainability.
• Engagement is built on relationships and relationships are built on trust. Don't try to "sell" your idea, share a story and invite others to share theirs.
  

I am going to keep building "lighthouses" and telling "stories". I hope as I share them we will understand and join the "new" generations and build on trust and shared values. Commitment is better than compliance, period.

People in Your Foxhole

Over the past few months I have had an opportunity to meet some fascinating people who have taught me a great deal. We have formed kind of a coalition to change the world and how we do things.

We call it Nemawashi- or building a new foundation. We have decided to take on some pretty interesting "truths"- like what defines leadership, loyalty, commitment, and a few other terms that seem to inspire a lot of discussion.

One of our group shares some great military metaphors- one of the best is the concept of "who has your six". At it's most basic the concept means covering each others back, especially your blind spot. The deeper meaning is a commitment to each other and something more than you. I think based on the information I see about engagement people want and need that. He also had a great metaphor about "Pete" the painter. As a leader your job is provide context and direction and to remember that each "canvas" requires a different brush.

Another colleague is trying to help organizations understand the importance of congruency and shared values in inviting people to join your organization. Why are we so cavalier about this and then so surprised when we don't get the results we are after.

Yet another colleague and I are trying to help people recognize that there is a natural symmetry to certain concepts that we tend to overlook- kindness and excellence. Respect and performance that meets our expectations. Clear expectations and feedback and trust. These things all go together.

We are also doing some work with definitions. It is interesting how social norms determine "truths". I saw two different editorials this weekend that were interesting to me regarding President Obama's speech. One said that President Obama was not being appropriately inclusive when he said "God bless America". I wonder if he meant to exclude the Buddha, Allah, or others? Is it important what we call our God, or just that we are willing to acknowledge the presence of a higher power?

The other person took umbrage that President Obama has been overly apologetic to the Islamic community and didn't include consideration for the actions taken in Serbia and other places during past administrations or the fact that we don't see public demonstrations against Muslims on the anniversary of September 11. I am probably too simplistic, I don't see what happened on September 11 as the actions of Muslims, but rather of terrorists. I think Timothy McVeigh considered himself a "Christian" didn't he? I thought the President was reaching out to rebuild trust.

What I share with these folks and others is a sense of engagement. These are some of the people I have in my "foxhole", those who have my "six" as I have theirs. Who have you invited to your foxhole?

Plans for 2009- Engage Your Workforce!

So we have completed our first full week of 2009. What do you think? I see 2009 from a mixed viewpoint. On one hand we are facing some of the most difficult financial cirumstances in almost 100 years. On the other hand we have a newly elected President and perhaps a catalyst for action that we have needed for a long time.

I have had the "opportunity" to have many titles and roles to this point in my career. Perhaps the most accurate one has been that of change agent. I recognized a while back that maintaining the status quo doesn't play to my strenghts very well. Organizations seem to value my particular skills and contributions when they want to do something different. My experience has also taught me that change rarely comes without some kind of a significant catalyzing event- positive or negative.

I would like to think that if nothing else 2008 has left us with a clear indication that many of the things in the current "system" aren't working. I think in many cases we already knew that, there just wasn't enough of a compelling reason to change, so we didn't and our markets failed.

I see and hear a lot about hanging on to employees who may be concerned about job security and company stability and from employers saing this may be an opportunity to "upgrade" their current workforce because of the unemployment situation. I hear employers talk about their frustration with the "entitlement" mentality of some employees and employees complaining about management "spin". What that tells me is that before our bubble burst we were operating in a kind of mutual codependency- we didn't trust our employers all that much, but we weren't willing to push too hard. Employers really didn't want to spend the time "engaging" their workforce because it is hard work and you probably have to make some fundamental changes. How did that model work for us?

I am recommending to my clients that we use the current environment as a foundation for creating a new relationship with their employees, their customers, and their communities. Maybe now would be a really good time to examine that "engagement" thing. To build a relationship based on mutual trust, respect, and all that other "soft" stuff.

You might say that sounds pretty Pollyanna- OK, what's plan B? Why not now? The first elements of my compliance to commitment model are respect, responsibility, and information. You should notice something interesting about them- none of them involve parties, lavish budgets, or other "expensive solutions".

I read an article recently that said that we are losing $200 billion per annum in the U.S. to "presenteeism". Presenteeism is where employees show up, but are operating at half or three quarter throttle because of personal issues, health concerns, poor morale or ineffective management. Yes, that number was $200 billion. At that rate we are peeing away the equivalent of the financial bail out three times every decade.

I guess since we seem to have the health care crisis, and unemployment, and world hunger and other stuff under control we really don't need that money.

You might recall that in some of my previous posts I have talked about the upside of engagement like increased productivity, reduced attrition, and increased customer satisfaction, think about the upside potential of recapturing 25 or 50% of those lost "opportunity" costs and putting it back to work.

I will tell you it won't be easy. I don't have a magic pill or a perfect solution. Plan B is to have the government "fix" it. So far I think we have spent one third of the bail out funds and we seem to have forgotten to get a receipt! Don't get me wrong, our situation is bad enough there is room for a new paradigm where corporations, government, communities, and individuals all participate.

So my plans are to try to do this this engagement thing- one client, one company, one community at a time. What are your plans?

Leading In Times Of Change

It is always interesting to see what resonates with people. My last blog was loosely based on a comment from former President Bill Clinton about the power of example rather than the example of power. It wasn't about the election, it was about leadership.

Any of you that have read my various articles and information about the difference between compliance and commitment are familiar with my bias towards creating organizations that people embrace rather than organizations where they purely comply. I think creating those kinds of organizations is the key role of leadership.

Marcus Buckingham author of First Break All the Rules among other new age management "bibles" calls it creating clarity. Richard Rumelt, professor of management at UCLA's Anderson School of Management refers to it as removing the ambiguity, and cites it as the most important role in management. Roger Deprey, in his Human Resources Pyramid, describes the six questions every employee seeks to have answered.

This week I got to read something from another distinguished leader who I respect and admire- former Secretary of State and military commander General Colin Powell. He talked about us being in a place where people want to see leaders with passion, a clear direction, and a moral compass. He goes on with a great quote that I think bears repeating-"Every soldier or employee needs to know why their job is important, not why yours is. It's the leader's job to communicate this clearly; give them the tools to get the job done and to inspire them to want to do the things they must to accomplish the goals or the mission."

He goes on to share some other key insights," If a leader doesn't have the insight into the team to do something about the lesser performers, the team loses respect. It is always painful, but almost immediately after you have taken action a cloud lifts off the organization."

My friend and colleague, Joseph Skursky of Market Leader Solutions, captures this in his philosophy of Hire Hard, Manage Easy, and talks about the hidden costs of not removing non-performers from your organization because " recruiting a new person is so painful." To Powell's point, that is simply not true.
In these particularly turbulent times General Powell also leaves us with these key thoughts-
"...as a leader your job is to always believe things can get better. You are the leader, you set the example. You will know you are a good leader when your troops will follow you if only out of curiosity."
You have heard me describe this phenomena more than once- power is something you take or achieve with your office or position, leadership is something your earn.

And once again we see trust as the critical factor- as General Powell suggests" ... the leader's job is to keep the organization together with the Super Glue of trust."

Sound familiar? Not charisma, not systems, not technology, but trust.
Commitment is better than compliance. Engaged employees are a competitive advantage. Trust is the essential element in both.

Now more than ever our employees and our communities need us to step up and lead. We must set the example. We must make the hard decisions. We must look forward.

Are You Qualified?

It has been an interesting week. Given the state of the stock market and the economy in general that probably represents an understatement. It has been especially interesting to me based on a couple of experiences I have had. It hardly seems that they took place in the same week.
I made a couple of posts on LinkedIn as I typically do each week or so. The first was on the topic of the current presidential campaign and my "sadness" at the tone that some of the campaign rhetoric has taken on. In some cases the support on both sides is almost pathological. My point wasn't to support either candidate, but rather to lament resorting to character attacks on the part of either.
My second post was about where we "learn" leadership. Once again I got interesting responses ranging from "leadership is inherent in the DNA" to people that feel like the Bible or the Koran clearly lay out the expectations of leaders.
I also had a couple of "professional" discussions this week which caused me to pose my question. In one conversation we evolved into the debate about Gen X and Millenials. He was commenting that their expectations are too high and they aren't doing the "work" necessary to achieve their aspirations. I asked him if he was mentoring any of the young people in his firm and he responded that he would mentor them if they asked, but he would not proactively seek them out. So I said- "What if they don't know how to ask?"
My experiences with those generations has been different. I find them inquisitive, engaged, but frankly less patient based on what they saw their parents and grandparents experience. Their interpersonal skills have definitely been shaped by cell phones, the internet, and video games; but they do have an appetite to learn.
Then I had someone ask me why I believe I am "qualified" to do the work I do. He indicated that he had degrees and certifications that clearly "qualified" him, but I seem to be lacking those "credentials".

So what makes us "qualified"? Short of professions with a licensing requirement is there really a definitive test? Is is our track record, our "following" or some other set of criteria?

As usual I am going to retreat into the simplistic. I believe what makes us "qualified" is the trust and respect that others are willing to place in us. On my "short" list of qualifications for leaders I would include vision, clarity, and integrity. I have found that those elements are foundational to the most binding element in any relationship- the element of trust. Without trust we have nothing and trust cannot be demanded, it can only be earned.
So I would respond to my questioner that for now, what makes me "qualified" is the trust and respect that others have bestowed on me. It is a gift not a right and they may choose to withdraw it at any time.

Why We Need Nemawashi Now!

I just had an opportunity to read a study commissioned by a division of Global Knowledge on the implementation of change management strategies and I have to tell you that it reinforced many of my earlier beliefs. Another study conducted by the International Society for Performance Improvement which tracked "success" for change efforts ranging from strategy deployment to mergers and acquisitions in 49 different applications showed a success rate of 33%- at the risk of being overly dramatic that means that two thirds of those initiatives failed!

Now you are probably asking yourself- What caused these initiatives to fail and hat can we do to improve our chances of success? The majority of studies found two primary causes of failure:

• Employee resistance
• Lack of proper training

The employee resistance factors have been boiled down to three key areas; fear of job loss, fear of increased responsibility, and frustration with the process. As you might suspect, this employee resistance is by far the biggest impediment to successful implementation. The good news is that there are a number of things that can be done to improve your success rate, specifically they include:

• Recognize and account for the "people" side of change management.
• Invest in developing effective interpersonal and communication skills for front line management.
• Recognize that change management is a systemic element of every day reality and build it into your plans and tactics. It is not an initiative it is a fact of today's reality!
• Anticipate what and where your resistance points will be and plan for them.

We are dealing with people! Using buzz words like restructuring, reallocation, re-engineering, etc. may sound sexy, but at the end of the day you are dealing with people. This is our whole foundation of Compliance to Commitment(TM), you give people a chance to "join up" with you rather than attempt to impose a change. At the very foundation is relationships and trust.

I would venture to say that the events of the last few weeks have done little to create trust on the part of employees and the public. Two thirds of the initiatives fail because they don't address these issues. Which group do you want to be in, the third that implements successful change or the two thirds that fail?

You will never implement sustained change without this foundation.

Nemawashi (根回し) Laying the Foundation

In some recent reading and studying I was doing on the topic of engagement, I came across the Japanese concept of nemawashi- or the laying of the foundation. Given my interests in the whole area of engaging organizations I found this concept especially compelling.

Nemawashi (根回し) in Japanese culture is an informal process of quietly laying the foundation for some proposed change or project, by talking to the people concerned, gathering support and feedback, and so forth. It is considered an important element in any major change, before any formal steps are taken, and successful nemawashi enables changes to be carried out with the consent of all sides.

In the reading I have been doing about creating truly engaged cultures, although this foundation is mentioned, it is not something that we spend a tremendous amount of time on. We tend to talk instead about systems and processes and technology.

At its most simplistic I see in the concept of nemawashi many elements that would appear to me to be fundamental to both leadership and management. You might recall that in previous blogs I have talked about building the foundation for engagement and the skills and attributes associated with it- I ventured that skill sets like:

• Setting clear expectations
• Giving and receiving feedback constructively
• Taking appropriate corrective action
• Recognizing positive results
• The ability to coach

are all critical as foundational to effective management and I wondered whether or not these elements have a degree of universal applicability. Others pointed out to me quite appropriately that in order to be highly effective management skills must be accompanied by leadership attributes:

• Clarity of vision
• Integrity and honesty
• The ability to execute
• Charisma or presence

I agree with them. The interesting area was the amount of agreement I got that these skills are not being taught consistently, nor are these "attributes" being cultivated in any kind of a systemic way in most organizations. Most companies still rely on some form of corporate "social Darwinism" for leaders to "emerge". What is our opportunity cost for that kind of a model? When we don't implement coaching models until mid-career or later what did we give up in turnover, lost productivity, and just general dis-engagement? I suspect rather a lot.

As we watch the financial markets "melt down" and Congress reject the bailout plan it seems to me that this "foundation" is clearly shaken. People point out that theoretically at least the CEO's and leaders running these organizations were the "best and brightest" with advanced degrees from some of the finest schools in the country if not the world. It would seem to me that as I read the blogs and watch the news embedded in a lot of the anger and the losses people are experiencing is most profoundly the loss of trust and faith in our financial and government institutions and our leadership. It will take something very different to get it back.

Perhaps now is the time to examine our Nemawashi and begin to rebuild our own organizations on an old fashioned foundation of mutual respect, trust, information, and clarity.

I wonder, now would seem to be a very good time.....

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.

A New Look At "Engagement"

Some of my latest reading on engagement has continued to intrigue me on this topic. Marketing professionals have been talking about "engagement" at the customer level for some time now, but I have recently read a couple of pieces that explore it in a new way.

The new Peppers and Rogers Group article discusses it in a way that feels more real to me- an integrated model that says that you will only really achieve true engagement when you build engagement with your customers on a solid foundation of engagement with your employees.
Intuitively that makes sense to me. If our employees are the cornerstone of our "brand" they must be as passionate about the brand as your Marketing folks or the agency. The brand must be embedded into the culture. When they talk about the two newer levels ; best practices and products, and pride of association they include the internal "stakeholder", the employee, as well.
They also talk about the foundation for engagement- the foundation is trust. How interesting? With all of the new technology and processes it still comes back to trust, which means relationships as the key.
As you know, we are deeply committed to this concept of engagement at the employee level- we call it moving from Compliance to Commitment(tm).

The other interesting reading I have done talks about two kinds of engagement as it relates to customers- emotional engagement and behavioral engagement. At its most simplistic, emotional engagement is when people are drawn to you. They remember your commercials, they can remember your mission statement or brand position.

Behavioral engagement is a little bit more real. Do they buy your products and services? They not only know your mission statement they buy your products and services. Do employees "live" the brand or just wear your logo wear?
In a reverse kind of a way this reminds me of WalMart. Other than the happy people on their commercials I don't meet too many people who admit that they actually shop there. They are the retailer everyone loves to bash. Small towns fight court battles to keep them out of their boundaries. Yet, somehow they manage to remain the largest retailer in the world. Is this an example of behavioral engagement- I wonder?

In the employee context we take attitude surveys, measure turnover, hold picnics, and measure "morale". Are we measuring emotional or behavioral engagement on the part of our employees?

The take aways I have from my reading are simple:

• You will not have true engagement with your customers without engaging your employees
• You will never have true engagement with your employees with out building and nurturing a foundation of trust.
• They have yet to invent a technology that builds trust. You have to do it the old fashioned way, person to person, one at a time.

My article on the business case clearly demonstrates the "numbers" for an engaged workforce and the financial competitive advantages that highly engaged versus non-highly organizations enjoy. In the final analysis then I would caution organizations to check their "foundation" before they invest in technology or process to improve financial performance.

After all these years it still comes down to trust.

Why We Build Lighthouses

I got the idea of building a "lighthouse" from a great quote that some employees shared with me when I worked at my last "corporate" role.

The idea is to create a vision or an idea that clarifies things for people.
I had a colleague on LinkedIn ask the question the other day - What Do You Do? I responded that I build virtual "lighthouses". She followed up with a question saying "Do you mean you turn people's thinking on?" My answer is I hope so.

I believe that people are the most important resource that any organizations possesses and that the foundation of all relationships is trust. I know some people would say that love makes the world go around, but I can love somebody and not want to do business with them. If I can't trust them there is no basis for the relationship to continue.

I had a discussion with one of my proteges the other day about a relationship she was discouraged about. She was questioning whether or not her time with the organization had come to an end. She felt that she didn't trust her supervisor, her supervisor didn't trust her, and she wasn't sure that she trusted the Executive Team.
I told her I couldn't and wouldn't make the decision for her, but for me that was a sign of time to depart.

Building a lighthouse is about what Marcus Buckingham calls clarity. He says that clarity is the most important quality of a leader- to be able to answer the questions-

• What do we do?
• Why does it matter?
• How do I fit in?

I think he is right, that's what we want from our leaders- clarity. Clarity leads to trust.

It is interesting to see how uncomfortable we remain with the concept of trust and relationships. When you look at organizations that "specialize" in change management they talk a lot about processes, and technology, and ERP and stuff like that. They don't talk very much about trust and relationships.

I talked about the fact that a national study showed that 40% of new managers fail in their first 18 months in the new role. The biggest reason- failure to build relationships and trust. I'm not very good with technology so I guess that I will just keep trying to build lighthouses and relationships.

I'll leave you with another quote from Margaret Wheatly-

In organizations, real power and energy is generated through relationships. The patterns of relationships and the capacity to form them are more important than tasks, functions, roles, and positions.