A case against EE?

[Michael Miener]

I just returned from a leadership program where we had some intense discussions about a statement from one of the lecturers saying we are facing a paradigm change going from

from
making individuals more valuable to organisations – by “motivation” and “engagement”

to
making organisations more valuable to individuals – who are already valuable

Agree or disagree? Looking forward to your comments.

[Michael Miener]

I guess I owe some more context to the initial "claim". It is a conclusion from Rob Goffee and Gareth Jones about what organisations need to do to attract "clever" people instead of trying to extract more and more value from employees by engaging or motivating. So your statement, Lalita, expresses exactly that thinking. However the authors' definition of "clever" is not equal to "nerd" or "geek", it reads Clever people are highly talented individuals with the potential to create disproportionate value from the resources available to them. Probably everyone knows this sort of people. They are hard to lead, do not care about hierarchies and can only be impressed by expertise.
Maybe it is not exactly about the choice whether to actively work on engagement, maybe it is just a change of talent management and leadership tactics - including a special sort of engagement.

A good summary of the latest Goffee/Jones book "Clever" can be found here.

[Judy Bardwick]

Ah...the power of words to mislead!

This is not an issue of rejecting EE; it is a recasting of the old idea of creating a Best Fit between what is very important to the employee and what the organization's culture is able to offer.

In other words, finding "clever" people is the age old task of selecting people who will flourish in whatever that organization can provide.

A long time ago someone paraphrased how hard it is to change anyone's values or personality this way: "No matter how long the runway, a pig can't fly."

[Bay Jordan]

Perhaps I am obtuse and missing the point, but it strikes me that this is not a paradigm shift, but simply the obverse of the same coin. It is on this forum that Employee Engagement has been described as changing the culture from 2nd person singular to first person plural (i.e. from 'you' to 'us''!) If that is the case, the point about making organisations more valuable to individuals, is not a case against EE but actually subverts it.

If people are the greatest asset they are so often claimed to be, then surely it is the value of the people that makes the organisational more valuable. The more successful people in an organisation the more successful the organisation. It cannot be otherwise. The reverse, however, is not the case, as recent corporate collapses so clearly demonstrate!

I cannot agree with others who think this is a forward step. It seems to imply a blind belief that an organisation has a life of its own thatis completely separate from the people who comprise it!

[Gina Abudi]

Well said Bay!

[Terrence Seamon]

Great discussion thread, Michael. Thanks for getting this started. And for the clarification re "clever" employees.
Re the paradigm shift, I have been sensing that for some years now. From a larger frame, some other shifts going on include the arrival of positive psychology, the growth in Appreciative Inquiry, the talent management movement, the rise of social networking, and the slow demise (at last) of performance appraisals.
Terry

[Deri Latimer]

I like this idea! When the organization is focused on being attractive to individuals, motivation and engagement return to their rightful place - the responsibility of each individual! The organization that is busy working on itself will undoubtedly be the organization that has created that motivating and engaging environment that individuals desire!

[Alan Smith]

Though I can't completely disagree with any of the points others have made, I will say that we are complicating the matter. At days end, organizations cannot/will not thrive without engaged employees and employees cannot/will not be engaged without supportive leadership. Stephen Covey sums it up this way: A cardinal principle of Total Quality escapes too many managers: you cannot continuously improve interdependent systems and processes until you progressively perfect interdependent, interpersonal relationships.

http://passionwerx.com

[Kevin Sheridan]

While holding the organization more responsible to prove their value to its employees is a great move, we can't forget that Engagement is most certainly a two-way street, as others have noted in this thread. Without both parties motivating themselves AND one another, overall satisfaction and Engagement will indeed suffer. On the employee side of the spectrum, a valuable tool that has helped my organization achieve higher levels of Engagement is our Personal Employee Engagement Report, or PEER®. It allows employees to discover their own Engagement level while being provided with best practice advice for improvement. The report also encourages employees to meet with their direct supervisor to discuss their performance and create a personal development plan, therefore encouraging Engagement to be worked from both sides of the fence.