Change Discourse: Discretionary Effort, Power and Routinization

I have been reading a grand sweeping tome by Yale historian and archaeologist, Ian Morris, called Why the West Rules...for Now. What struck me in the reading is how ancient kings, who orchestrated hierarchical economic systems, claimed deity - and how readily subjects believed in the kings' "mandate of heaven" ... until things went awry, of course. I didn't think it was a matter of rulers simply appointing themselves as gods and then expecting everyone to believe it - there must be something much, much more unconscious and instinctive going on. This supports Joseph Campbell's thesis that, until now, each age gets the mythology it needs to support its social/technical/economic arrangement. 

People prefer order until it chafes. They get their sense of tribe and belonging via the social order and organization, if not the day to day rituals, the situating of one's activities in the scheme of things.  People tell themselves (internalize and identify with) the prevailing story (or mythology) in order to feel more socially and economically secure. This explains the dismal fate of many would-be change agents in the distant and recent past and the depressing mantra of "that's just how it is - it's never going to change." Usually there is some kind of "reaction formation" (e.g., today's fundamentalisms) before there is change.

With that in mind, think about the Enlightenment. Immanuel Kant said "Have the courage to use your own understanding!" How does this tie to high demand/low control situations at work and employee engagement?

I was at a workshop facilitated by Julie Diamond last fall called "Deep Democracy." A very interesting discussion occured about people defaulting to routine/process during work time, and not bringing their personal powers (talents and abilities) into the converstion. There's a certain amount of risk involved and courage required to use personal power in a more or less hierarchical situation, but engagement requires it. (The hierarchical order isn't necessarily embodied in individuals, but in organizational norms and habits of belief.) 


It's important to feel that you bring your whole self into work. This ties directly to high demand / low control issues often referred to in discussions of workplace stressors, because the definition of engagement includes the willingness to invest discretionary effort (which would require a good degree of freedom from control) to achieving the organization's objectives. 


So now the question is, what would allow people to apply more discretionary effort? How can we loosen up whatever version of "the divine right of kings" mythology that the organization is labouring under, and today's kings are just those bureaucratic norms of discourse that provide default support to initiative-sapping routines and hierarchies.

Engagement and Leadership -- Creating Space

I've been keeping track of various discussions and blogs out there, and my interest in the subject of competency, motivation and opportunity (CMO) has carried over from the ideas expressed in the preceding post to thoughts on leadership.  People have been talking about qualities of leaders and one that sticks with me is the emphasis on the fact that leaders create space.  I'd have to agree. If you think about it, that jives with the Opportunity part of the CMO triad.

Sadly, that there have been times where I observed that not enough was done to create space...well, to be starkly honest, I have seen that when people have potentially transformative ideas, management can sometimes react territorially, inspiring colleagues of the would-be change agent to ignore (and even disparage) his or her new ideas, since there was no leadership that would create a way to adopt, or even discuss new ways of doing things. The constricted workplace is a culture of inertia, and since creativity always has to go somewhere, the constricted workplace becomes a toxic workplace where a lack of trust is self-reproducing.

On more positive fronts, I have also observed that when those in charge ask for and are open to their employees' input on decisions and are not afraid to delegate, the enthusiasm for work increases exponentially.

That says to me that under it all, people already have the motivation to engage and use discretionary effort (and where they have motivation and opportunity, they will develop the competencies in a risk-tolerant environment) so what's most important is the ability of those in charge to create the space to let it happen.

So, in the end, it seems to me that a leader is someone who creates space (a values-based approach) rather than someone who constricts it, identifying leadership with control (a rules-based approach.).  Leaders create a culture of trust and opportunity.

Employee Engagement: Competence, Motivation, Opportunity

In his Contrarian Thinking blog, Etienne Laliberté posted a link to a discussion paper entitled "An HR Director's Guide to Employee Engagement". I think the authors really underscore the limitation of the competency approach here:

The long-standing focus on ‘skills’ as key to increasing productivity is too limited. The ‘people and performance’ model identifies the three requirements for releasing employees’ discretionary effort as ability, motivation and opportunity. The skills agenda addresses only the first of these – employee engagement addresses all three. There is an historic opportunity for the Government to demonstrate that it understands the drivers of...performance.

Their Main Point: You not only need the relevant competencies, you need opportunity and motivation.

But here's the tricky question: Which is more important?

First, consider whether relevant competencies are something people are born with. Generally they are learned. They are abilities that people learn both formally and informally, in the classroom, and more often on the job.

Second, consider what are called "generic competencies". Who cannot learn them? Apart from the tragic cases, people have capacity to learn most generic competencies, and it's a matter of motivation and opportunity whether they realize these capacities or not.

I can understand that for jobs in which professional certification and/or very well-developed technical skills are required, these requirements would be included in a job description or a job posting. But it is very important to understand that competencies are not like standard features on a car, like horsepower, or doors, or seating. They are not static givens that people are born with, they are things that, given the opportunity and motivation people will learn, develop and display.

The fact that competencies are learned, not givens, raises questions about the value of hiring on the basis of lists of generic competencies. We should be looking for potential and providing opportunities, not looking for static givens thereby ruling out potential.

If I were hiring someone for for a job, I would certainly ensure they had the key professional technical expertise required, but on the more generic competencies, I'd forgo the standard list, except perhaps for communication skills, and look for what they enjoy:

What did they do or what ideas do they have that make their eyes light up when they tell you about them? Are they interested in the fine details, or are they interested in the big picture? Do they prefer action or contemplation? Do they feel anxious if things are not perfectly clear and stable, or can they tolerate a certain level of ambiguity? Are they more comfortable dealing with "just the facts" (task masters) or do they explore possibilities (experimenters)? Are they motivated primarily to climb the ladder (careerists) or to express creativity (innovators)? Do they enjoy working alone or in groups? What balance of direction/discretion are they most comfortable with? In what way do they really want to make a difference in their professional lives?

Understanding people's preferences, their motivations, would tell me most of what I'd need to know, if not more, than checking off the standard lists. And given the opportunity to act in accordance with their preferences and motivations, they would continually develop the relevant competencies.

So motivation and opportunity do not merely "complete" the trio of elements of employee engagement necessary to improve performance, they actually are the basis for learning, developing and displaying competence.

The Logic of Quantophrenia

Here's a crash course on the reasonable and unreasonable (quantophrenic) use of indicators (business metrics):

Reasonable:

Given a reliable indicator (sign) of a concrete problem, there is a concrete problem.
If the problem is resolved concretely, the indicators should represent (track/signal) that.

I>P (If I then P)
Therefore,
~P > ~I (If not P then not I)

This is a logically valid form of reasoning. It spurs committed people to remedy the concrete problem.

A simple example for illustrative purposes: Imagine that an unexpectedly high number of employees have been on long term acting assignments in different parts of your organization. What does that indicate? Let's say you do some research and your investigation reveals that, although there are a number of bona fide developmental activities occurring, the problem is due to cumbersome staffing processes and a weakness in integrating business and HR planning, making assignments a quick remedy. So what do you do? You reason that if you streamline staffing and pay more attention to resourcing with respect to projected business requirements, over time, your numbers should diminish to levels that would be expected given developmental activities.

Quantophrenic version:

Given some accurate indicator (sign) of a concrete problem, there is a concrete problem.
If the indicators have changed for the better, the problem has been concretely resolved.

I>P
Therefore,
~I > ~P

IS NOT a valid form of reasoning (it commits what logicians call "the fallacy of denying the antecedent"), and in itself a sign of a problem; i.e., tick box management.

To illustrate, using the previous example, an unexpectedly high number of employees on long term acting assignments indicates problems with cumbersome staffing processes and a weakness in integrating business and HR planning. So what do you do? To meet your indicator target, you remove everyone from their acting assignments. Obviously, you have met your indicator target 100%, but you have not solved the concrete problem, in fact you have quite clearly exacerbated it.

This is a very simplistic example, but it illustrates the potential dangers of metrics as business drivers.

Question: what drives quantophrenia?

Putting the B in Bureaucracy

How to get tangled in a "web of rules":

1. Make sure that the point for which the rules and administrative procedures are implemented is obscure. (This is made that much easier by the prevailing assumption that the desired result is simply whatever is produced by fastidious adherence to a process, methodology or technique.)
   
   
2. Maintain a strict hierarchy and ensure that people blindly follow the rules even though doing so in certain instances runs counter to the objective that they were supposed to ensure.
   
   
3. Rather than solving administrative problems with a systemic view, make enough ad hoc adjustments in the system to appear to to have a sincere interest in remedying flow problems. That way, the very logic of the system in relation to the objective is completely lost and there is no way a reasoning person can determine why the rules exist in the first place.
   
   
4. When it reaches the point that no one knows where the rules came from or why they’re following the rules, develop business metrics to prove compliance (here creativity is a bonus, but only here) and carefully post them framing them as achievements of results and outcomes, thus ensuring "transparency"). Then make heavy investments in technical systems to ensure that compliance (a.k.a. achievement of results) is easy to monitor (in principle, anyway).  

In today's complex environment, to possess the foresight necessary to map out administrative and reporting processes so that they never run counter to the strategic objectives would need more genius and ingenuity than any person alive on the planet today. While perfection is not in the cards, there have to be ways of identifying and remedying the administrative blockages and obfuscations that lead to loss of meaning and employee disengagement, let alone inefficiencies. Learning should be ongoing.
The solution is to make sure that the policy objectives are always clear (and meaningful) to people and that bureaucratic processes are always up for examination. The administrative rules should not be absolute but treated as heuristics used judiciously by intelligent and ethical managers and leaders.
Today, it is said that a relevant public service is a flexible public service.

Those who are firm and inflexible
are in harmony with dying.
Those who are yielding and receptive
are in harmony with living.*

*From verse 76 of the Tao te Ching, translated in the book, The Tao of Power by R.L. Wing.