leadership - Blogs - DPG Community2024-03-29T09:19:02Zhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/feed/tag/leadershipTen ways Resilience can improve leadershiphttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/ten-ways-resilience-can-improve-leadership2020-11-12T15:39:34.000Z2020-11-12T15:39:34.000ZRussell Harveyhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/RussellHarvey<div>As we enter what seems to be becoming known as ‘lockdown 2.0’ HR Professionals, senior managers and leaders of teams may be struggling with managing colleagues remotely, and finding a way to keep the wheels of work in motion in these very strange times. If you are a leader, you might feel the primary focus should be keeping your teams motivated and resilient, but who is taking care of you? A bit of self-care to work on your own resilience may be required. You might think this is rather selfish, but I promise you it will help not just you but your teams as well. Here’s ten ways developing resilience can help:1) Reduce isolation: 2020 has been tough, and as we enter lockdown again you may well be feeling isolated, particularly if you have been working from home for a long time. Reviewing and rebuilding your support network, a key dimension of resilience as outlined in my Resilience Wheel, helps you retain a feeling of connection to others. Reviewing what you need from others, ie support, but also constructive challenge, will help your own confidence and adaptability. 2) Re-gain perspective:When we feel stressed and burned out, as many may be doing at the moment, small problems can become magnified. Building resilience can help you regain a sense of perspective and calm, essential to addressing problems more easily. 3) Support your team:If team members are struggling with their performance and motivation at the moment, developing your own resilience can help you to give them the strength and support needed to turn things around.4) Improve engagement:Working on your own resilience can help rekindle a sense of purpose, which increases your own and your team’s confidence and motivation, as clear shared goals are identified, and everyone understands their part in delivering these. 5) Re-establish your personal values:Do you feel like your personal values are out of sync with the way you are working? Developing your own resilience can provide clarity on what your values are, and whether or not they are aligned to the way you are currently working. 6) Collaborate effectively:If you feel unable to ask your peers or colleagues to support, perhaps because you don’t want to add to their pressures, developing your own resilience will help you to have productive conversations with them. By learning to play to your own strengths, and encouraging them to do the same, teams can feel happier and more motivated to get tasks done effectively. 7) Ease the strain:If you feel like an elastic band that’s ready to snap at any moment, developing your own resilience can help you regulate your emotions, and understand ways to re-charge, recuperate and re-energise.8) See the bigger picture:Sometimes it can feel as if we get so bogged down with the minutiae of the immediate tasks, the long-term overall strategy is all but forgotten. When this happens, teams are in danger of veering off course, focusing on the wrong things, and lacking productivity. Building your own resilience can help you re-focus on what matters, so you and your team can all see the bigger picture more clearly.9) Focus on the right tasks:The definition of insanity is repeating the same actions and hoping for a different outcome, yet so often I see people trapped in this type of behaviour at work, often because it is ‘the ways we’ve always done it.’ Developing greater resilience enables you and your team members break out of these inefficient behavioural patterns and focus on what really matters.10) Rest easy!Finally, never underestimate the restorative powers of a good night’s sleep. Resilient people know that eight hours’ a night is the way forward to maintain mental and physical health and support peak performance at work. If you liked my blog, then please take a look at some of these previous instalments:• ‘Make time to build resilience and reap the rewards’ • "Self-care isn't selfish, why Leaders should be Resilience role models.I hope you have found my tips helpful. If you would like more information on building either your own or your team’s resilience, please do get in touch. Best wishesRussell</div>Surrounded by people who have nothing significant to say?https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/surrounded-by-people-who-have-nothing-significant-to-say2018-12-06T12:58:59.000Z2018-12-06T12:58:59.000ZAdy Howeshttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/AdyHowes<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/248817134?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p>Does your organisation have a culture of listening? I mean, really listening. Not just hearing stuff? Actually listening. Soaking it up. Understanding. Conversing. Respecting.</p>
<p>When I left school, I joined the armed forces where I worked as a Radio Operator for around seven years. One of my day to day responsibilities was decoding messages received on a voice radio from other ships and units and turning them into plain language to verbally pass to the officers in command of the ship. The messages were important. They gave information to make important decisions. On many occasions getting this right was literally a case of life or death with seconds seperating the two.</p>
<p>In training for this role, the importance of ‘being heard’ was drilled into me. There was no point being meek and timid with a voice that would fail to carry over the hustle and bustle and noisy engines. I had to shout communication, persisting until it was heard.</p>
<p>What surprised me though when I left training, was the various cultures of the variety of ships I worked on. On some it felt that my zero-level seniority meant that I was easily ignored. I remember some occasions of this happening with disastrous and expensive consequences. But on most, there was a level of respect for the task I had in hand and the importance of the information that I was conveying. The fact I didn’t carry stripes didn’t matter. There was a culture that made sure my voice was heard and the information I shared was acted upon.</p>
<p>Throughout my career in civilian life I’ve fortunately not had to shout my feedback. I haven't found myself in those life or death situations. Even so, I've had feedback to share which is important and where I've felt there are consequences for not listening to it. I have found differences though in how good the leaders and people are in different organisations with the idea of listening. According to Harvard Business Review, ‘<a href="https://hbr.org/2016/05/listening-is-an-overlooked-leadership-tool">Listening is an overlooked leadership tool</a>’. In some places I’ve worked, I’ve seen a strong presence of a listening mindset where people are heard regardless of seniority, position or experience. In those organisations leaders go out of their way to be present and listen. They have strategies, initiatives and a genuine desire to encourage dialogue. This is then mirrored out all other levels where listening and collaboration seem to happen because it’s seen to be a the way things are done around here.</p>
<p>In contrast I’ve worked in other organisations that operate in ways where only the select few have a voice.  Everyone else, is expected to get back in their box and to quote a naval phrase ‘pipe down’.</p>
<p>It was once said by a guy called Andy Stanley, <strong>‘Leaders who refuse to listen will eventually be surrounded by people who have nothing significant to say’</strong>.</p>
<p>I believe that. Do you?</p>
<p>What cultures have you worked in when it comes to listening?</p>
<p>I’m interested to know.</p>
</div>A leadership reflectionhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/a-leadership-reflection2018-11-15T17:59:27.000Z2018-11-15T17:59:27.000ZChris Hallhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/ChrisHall325<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/135259238?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p>Recently I read a really interesting quote someone posted on LinkedIn as part of the 10 day mentoring challenge and it really changed my perspective.</p><p>"Nobody is the bad guy. Everyone is the hero of their own story. Assume that everyone is trying to do the right thing and take it from there."</p><p>Thinking back, I can think of a few times as a leader when I've tried to do the right thing, tried to be the hero, but ended up doing the wrong thing instead.</p><p>I've been fortunate in my career to have worked for some outstanding leaders (also some pretty lousy ones too, but that's a different story).</p><p>One of the most impressive leaders I've worked for was my first. The head of the school where I started my teaching career, a man called John North. What made John so brilliant to work for was he made me feel bullet proof. Whilst working for him, I felt I could go out and try new things, experiment with new ways of doing things and, most importantly, learn. He was my bullet proof vest.</p><p>When things didn't work out, when parents complained, he'd sort it. He'd shield me from harm. I can't explain how empowering and liberating that felt.</p><p>So when I first started out in leadership, I used John as my role model. I decided that my job was to protect my team, to be their shield. I'd take on the tough tasks, handle the awkward and prickly clients and take care of any messy and difficult situations. I'd be my teams hero and we'd go on to achieve great things.</p><p>But here's the thing, it didn't happen. In my preoccupation with shielding my people from any and all challenges I drastically limited their ability to learn and to develop.</p><p>You see, we all need to stretch ourselves, to operate in a place on the edge of our abilities and comfort zones if we want to learn and develop. For all my good intentions, I was taking away these key opportunities for my people to learn.</p><p>I'd misunderstood what made John a great leader. Yes he protected people when they made mistakes, but more importantly, he created an environment where his people were given opportunities to make mistakes. That's why his teams thrived.</p><p>In my efforts to be the hero, I ended up stifling my team.</p><p>So next time you're feeling frustrated with your boss, remember:</p><p>"Nobody is the bad guy. Everyone is the hero of their own story. Assume that everyone is trying to do the right thing and take it from there."</p><p>Have your say:</p><p>Who's the best boss you've ever worked for? What made them so great?</p><p>Equally, have you ever tried something with the best intentions which just didn't work out?</p></div>Dealing with anxiety in the workplacehttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/dealing-with-anxiety-in-the-workplace2018-08-09T15:30:45.000Z2018-08-09T15:30:45.000ZSam Houltonhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/SamHoulton<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/71301649?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p> </p><p>Day-to-day life can be challenging.</p><p>When things get tough, people get ill. Both physically and mentally.</p><p>Unfortunately for one hairdresser in the UK, her struggle with mental illness lead to her employer sacking her.</p><p>The unnamed woman was diagnosed with anxiety in April 2017. When she told the salon owner she’d been advised to take some time off work, she was met with the reply that the salon “didn’t do” sick days.</p><p>After returning to work, she was labelled a liability by her boss, claiming her “head was all over the place”. Not long after she was told to pack up and leave.</p><p>After arguing the unlawful sacking in court, the apprentice hairdresser was awarded £6,312.</p><p>These days, more people than ever are being diagnosed with mental health issues such as anxiety and depression.</p><p><iframe src="//www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/key/4wENwFQygWSEam" width="668" height="714" frameborder="0"></iframe></p><div style="margin-bottom: 5px;"><strong><a title="10 ways to destress your employees infographic" href="//www.slideshare.net/jacobsongroup/10-ways-to-destress-your-employees-infographic" target="_blank" rel="noopener">10 ways to destress your employees infographic</a></strong> from <strong><a href="https://www.slideshare.net/jacobsongroup" target="_blank" rel="noopener">jacobsongroup</a></strong></div><p>According to ‘No Panic’, a charity that deals specifically with people who suffer from Panic Attacks and anxiety disorders, in 2013 alone there 8.2 million cases of anxiety. The charity mind state that 1 in 6 workers are dealing with mental health problems which could stop people from performing at their best.</p><p>In UK law, mental health is treated as a disability, which makes it a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010. Therefore, from a legal perspective, a productivity perspective and for the health of any company, it’s important that mental health is treated correctly. Here’s how:</p><ul><li><strong>Reduce stress levels in the office</strong> – Remove as best you can any stress indicators that may be lurking in your offices. This one is simple but can be very easily overlooked.</li><li><strong>Ensure employees take measures to manage stress levels</strong> – Communicate how important it is that your staff manage their stress levels and be flexible in helping them do so. If they have certain methods, allow them time off to do so.</li><li><strong>Give your employees some distractions</strong> – Work should be fun. Having activities such as classes or workshops in which staff can relieve tension and forget about the stresses of home and work-life, even for a short amount of time, can really benefit the health of your employees.</li></ul><p>For tips on how to destress yourself and others, check out <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/stress-relief-that-works_n_3842511" rel="nofollow">these 20 tips from the Huffington Post</a>.</p><p>For the legal side of things, its really important you brush up your knowledge on dismissals and mental illness.</p><p>Personnel today have some really helpful advice on the legal aspect of things that you can find <a href="https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/the-law-and-mental-health-in-the-workplace/" rel="nofollow">here</a>.</p><p>Alternatively, it might be worth brushing up your knowledge with a CIPD qualification. DPG offer a range of programmes that could broaden your knowledge and adaptability when it comes to dealing with a range of issues like this. You can find there <a href="https://www.dpgplc.co.uk/courses-qualifications/" rel="nofollow">here</a>.</p></div>The #LoveCPD Spotlight Series July Editionhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/the-spotlight-series-july-edition2017-07-26T11:11:14.000Z2017-07-26T11:11:14.000ZLucy Boltonhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/LucyBolton<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2217355?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p>On the community we are constantly looking for new ways to help you with your CPD. Recently we have been hosting monthly polls in each of the zones to get your opinions on workplace situations. We have combined these poll results with research conducted by leaders in the industry to bring you your first month's spotlight!</p>
<p>This spotlight series aims to support your CPD by providing you with relevant, up to date research from a range of sources to help you to develop your understanding of the current trends in L&D, HR and Leadership and Management. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>To view this months spotlight online <a href="http://docs.dpgplc.co.uk/Spotlight/July/Flipbook/mobile/index.html#p=1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">click here.</a></p>
<p>To download a copy of this months spotlight click here: <a href="http://docs.dpgplc.co.uk/Spotlight/July/July_Spotlight..pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Download</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>To help us out with next months spotlight issue, click into each of the zones and enter your vote into each of the polls on the right hand side!</p>
<p>If you have any ideas on what next months topics could be, share them in the comments below!!</p>
<p> </p>
</div>Who Didn’t Voice Their Concerns?https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/who-didn-t-voice-their-concerns2017-06-23T16:09:21.000Z2017-06-23T16:09:21.000ZBay Jordanhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/BayJordan<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2217300?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p>When you think about it, no organisational failure of any magnitude can come as a surprise. Someone, somewhere, was aware that things were not right. Yet those people either did not say anything or their concerns were ignored. </p><p>For instance, remember the Deepwater Horizon disaster? There concerns about the equipment had been raised, but simply ignored by management. Now we have another example.</p><p></p><p>For over a week now, Britain has been reeling in the aftermath of the Grenfell Tower fire – the incineration of a 24 storey residential building in the early hours of the morning of 14 June. At present the death toll stands at 79 but no-one yet knows whether everyone who was in the building has been accounted for. Inevitably, people are questioning, “How could this happen in this day and age?”</p><p>Perhaps that is inevitable after a disaster of this nature. Yet there are numerous other questions are being asked as well. Questions like:</p><ul><li>Why had the building been refurbished with flammable cladding?</li><li>Why did the alarms not work?</li><li>Why did the fire extinguisher not work?</li><li>What safety precautions had been ignored that enabled the fire to spread so quickly?</li><li>Why had residents’ concerns not been heeded?</li></ul><p>These all reveal the really shocking fact that this is entirely a man-made tragedy. Like the Titanic and Deepwater Horizon, it appears to have been avoidable. That is why inquiries have been set up and criminal investigations are underway.</p><p>Until the results are known, it is futile to speculate about the specifics of what went wrong. Nevertheless, one thing is abundantly clear: either <strong><em>no-one spoke up who should have spoken up</em></strong> or <em><strong>people spoke up but were ignored</strong></em><strong>.</strong> If the inquiry is serious about preventing future disasters, this is undoubtedly a line of enquiry that needs to be thoroughly investigated. </p><p>Indeed it is imperative that it is. According to a report in Management Today (May 2016) <em>“Of 40,000 employees at a technology company, half felt it was not safe to voice dissenting opinions at work. In consulting, financial services, media, pharmaceutical and advertising companies, 85% admitted to keeping quiet about an important concern.”</em> How frightening is that? The ramifications of such failures in any of those industries could be catastrophic, as my examples show.</p><p>The pervasiveness of such attitudes suggest it is the norm and make it likely that this line of enquiry may well be overlooked. Yet, that very fact makes it even more important that it isn’t. Examples like these – and even the corporate collapses that led to the 2008 financial crisis – clearly indicate the inadequacy of corporate risk assessments, and the need to incorporate such issues in these processes.</p><p>Perhaps you think it is pointless to do so, until you identify a more effective method to reverse the problem. I would argue, however, that this is readily done by creating a more organic structure for your organisation. And, the way to do that, is to adopt the ‘Every Individual Matters’ Model. This transforms your organisational culture and creates the strategic alignment you need to secure, safeguard and sustain your ongoing success. Why? Because it makes your business their business and thus ensures all your employees are fully engaged. </p></div>The Power of Ownershiphttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/the-power-of-ownership2017-03-30T09:32:57.000Z2017-03-30T09:32:57.000ZBay Jordanhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/BayJordan<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2217225?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p>“Mine!” Who hasn’t heard a young child say that? The concept of ownership is one of our most primitive senses. Indeed, I once read that the difference between North American and South American history, (both colonised around the same time) could be attributed to the encouragement of land ownership stimulating the greater development of the North. </p>
<p>Be that as it may, you would have some difficulty arguing against the idea that ownership is an integral part of capitalism. The concepts of limited liability and the lasting, legal persona of the corporation would not have been possible, or nearly as successful, without distributed ownership and the amelioration of risk it created. So much so, that you might even argue that ownership is the heart of capitalism. Which is why it is strange that so little has been done to make employees owners. Even stranger – and certainly ironic – is that efforts to encourage this are sometimes seen as socialism! </p>
<p>In fact, making your employees co-owners of your business has to be the ultimate in capitalism. Why? Because it also gives them a stake in the outcome. This makes it more personal. It gives them the pride of possession. Now, instead of simply being ‘servants of <strong><em>the</em></strong> organisation’ they become ‘partners in <strong><em>our</em></strong> organisation.’</p>
<p><img class="mce-pagebreak">Apart from anything else this also bridges the historic divide between owners and workers. Being seen as, or treated as, or perceived as being treated as, nothing more than a costly resource, is the root of all industrial conflict. No one likes to feel unappreciated or unvalued. And a philosophy that regards people as a resource – a cost to be minimised – perpetuates that sense.</p>
<p>Giving employees a stake in the business cuts right through that mindset. It reshapes the whole relationship and its dynamics. That has to be a win-win for both parties. This is endorsed by <a href="http://peopledevelopmentmagazine.com/2017/03/05/redefining-ownership-age-agile/?mc_cid=f538722e62&mc_eid=55ff4bdab9" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" title="Redefining Ownership in the Age of Agile">this article</a> on ownership, in which the point that shared ownership cannot work without shared purpose is particularly relevant. </p>
<p>Having a stake in the business is a basic catalyst for ensuring that there is a shared purpose. Both organisation and individual – employer and employee – have the goal of optimising the organisation’s performance to deliver the best results possible. This in turn, has to drive improved communication, better co-operation and greater collaboration, and therefore a cohesive culture with stronger strategic alignment. It all becomes one powerful virtuous circle; something that benefits everyone. </p>
<p>This is the reason why Employee Share/Stock Ownership Plans (ESOP’s) are popular. But, as you are well aware, these are not the panacea they promise to be. This is primarily because</p>
<ul>
<li>They are not universal;</li>
<li>They are often not equitable;</li>
<li>They can be all-too-easily manipulated;</li>
<li>Such ownership is simply seen as part of their remuneration package and so the intention gets corrupted and diluted: ownership is linked to personal performance and so the organisational benefit and sense of shared purpose are lost and employees still don’t get any real sense of ownership.</li>
</ul>
<p><br><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1357903?profile=original" target="_self"><img src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1357903?profile=RESIZE_320x320" width="250" class="align-right"></a>As a result they can often be counter-productive and cause more resentment. So beware being caught up in an ESOP fable! You need an ownership model that overcomes these failings and truly creates a sense of shared purpose that delivers on the promise of ownership. The ‘Every Individual Matters’ Model offers you that. It creates engaged employees who will say "Mine!" about your organisation.</p></div>Shape Sustained Organisational Success by Building it into Your DNAhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/shape-sustained-organisational-success-by-building-it-into-your-d2017-03-24T11:33:40.000Z2017-03-24T11:33:40.000ZBay Jordanhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/BayJordan<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2217227?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p>In 1991 Charles Handy concluded that the basic purpose of an organisation is to perpetuate itself within the context of the environment in which it operates. You might not have thought about it in quite that way, but that conviction encapsulates and drives everything you do as a business leader. It shapes the way you think, the way you act and the way you expect others to think and act. That’s perhaps inevitable, but nonetheless spelling it out provides food for thought. Not least because it demands a long-term outlook. </p>
<p>Most business leaders will plead that they are thinking about the long-term and will cite all their strategic planning efforts as evidence of this. Yet, notwithstanding this, there seems to be increasing consensus that focus is too much on the short-term. All too often corporate failure seems to come as a major surprise: whether after a long-lingering painful demise that drained energy and resources, without achieving anything and failing to avoid the inevitable, or suddenly, as with the failures that precipitated the 2008 financial crisis. This is subjective territory and open to discussion beyond the scope of this article. Suffice to say that we need a more effective way of addressing the longer-term measures of organisational performance.</p>
<p>Here too Handy once again gives us some pointers as to how. He said, <em>“The companies that survive longest are the ones that work out what they uniquely can give to the world not just growth or money but their excellence, their respect for others, or their ability to make people happy. Some call those things a soul.</em>” I call it ‘Love at Work.’ But whatever you call it, it stems from people – your employees, your customers, and your suppliers – and the way you treat them – and Science supports this! </p>
<p><img class="mce-pagebreak">It seems that science – apparently much to its own surprise – has proved that <a href="http://i-uv.com/new-research-shocks-scientists-human-emotion-physically-shapes-reality/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" title="human emotion physically shapes reality">human emotion physically shapes reality</a>. I love that the article refers to this finding as “hiding in plain sight.” It seems to imply that it isn’t actually hidden or a secret, just that we have been slow in identifying it. </p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1357891?profile=original" target="_self"><img src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1357891?profile=RESIZE_480x480" width="320" class="align-left"></a>You are likely familiar with Henry Ford’s statement, <em>“If you think you can do a thing or if you think you can't do a thing, you're right.”</em> There are many others like it. They are also true: you need to look no further than placebos and the placebo effect to understand that our thinking does in fact govern our experience. For me, the exciting thing here is the fact that scientist have now proved it is not only true of our thinking, but also our emotions. Of course, that shouldn’t really be surprising either when you understand that emotions are effectively nothing more than unconscious or subconscious thoughts! Yet the implications are profound as they create a new reality.</p>
<p>Handy identifies them when he talks about the need to “make people happy.” Remember, he is saying you’re your organisation’s long-term survival depends on this. And long-term survival is the same as sustained success. So, if you want to be successful and avoid falling by the wayside sooner or later, you need to ensure that you make your people your primary focus. You need to build their happiness into your DNA. </p></div>Talking Heads or Turning Heads?https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/talking-heads-or-turning-heads2017-03-16T17:14:56.000Z2017-03-16T17:14:56.000ZBay Jordanhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/BayJordan<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2217205?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p>Of course you are not a talking head. But are you – or any members of your team – in danger of becoming one or being seen as one?</p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1357907?profile=original" target="_self"><img src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1357907?profile=RESIZE_480x480" width="320" class="align-right"></a>A talking head is defined as <em>“A person, especially a news reporter, an interviewer, an expert, etc., who appears on television in a close-up, hence essentially as a bodiless head.”</em> Unless you are a regular on the screen this might not seem to apply to you! Yet, as we all get so busy and obsessed with targets, deadlines and performance measures, heads start ruling hearts and we risk becoming metaphorical talking heads. This is not good.</p>
<p><img class="mce-pagebreak">Human beings are governed as much by emotion as intellect. That is why emotional intelligence is now more widely recognised and assessed. When you fail to consider people’s emotions you are effectively regarding them as no more than ‘hired hands.’ This diminishes their identity – and your own – and their sense of self-worth. You can never inspire employee engagement if you have people who feel unfulfilled, unappreciated and unvalued. (Even the word “feel” here alludes to the innate emotional need: it is not something you can quantify or measure.)</p>
<p>That is why I was interested in an article that came my way this week – <a href="https://leadershipfreak.blog/2017/03/14/5-ways-to-be-a-leader-who-turns-heads/amp/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" title="Head turning leadership">5 Ways to be a Leader who Turns Heads</a>. I loved the photograph caption/headline, <em>“Power goes up when people talk around the table rather than to the head of the table,”</em> and the idea that leadership is about turning heads towards each other. </p>
<p>The articles goes on to give some very simple, but practical, tips for doing this, which you would do well to put into practice. Unfortunately though, at the end of the day they are just a list. They will, on their own, do nothing to change your behaviour. And, as I said earlier, the pressure of deadlines, targets and performance measures, make it all to likely that the list will be no different to a New Year’s resolution – soon forgotten!</p>
<p>To avoid being – or becoming – a talking head, you need to be more human and more humane. You need to ensure there is ‘Love at Work.’ People who love their work are engaged employees. And the ‘Every Individual Matters’ Model provides the catalyst to change your organisational culture and embed this ‘Love at Work.’ to radically transform your organisation and its results, and to enhance your own life and your employees. Turning heads will ensure that no-one in the organisation is merely a talking head. </p></div>Why you need love at workhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/why-you-need-love-at-work2017-03-02T11:20:23.000Z2017-03-02T11:20:23.000ZBay Jordanhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/BayJordan<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2217195?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p>The idea was novel. It had promise. It was exciting. Yet part of me still baulked. “People won’t take me seriously.” “I will be ridiculed.” “It is too alien: no businessman would be interested.” Those were just some of the doubts that paralyzed me.</p><p><img class="mce-pagebreak"/>It is one thing to talk about needing to win the hearts and minds of your employees. But to talk about love in the workplace seemed to be pushing the boat out too far. I feared it was too open to misinterpretation. Thus, despite the realisation that love at work is essentially what I am promoting, I just couldn’t bring myself to say so. Yet, isn’t it also the core – the very essence – of employee engagement?</p><p>Seeing it in that light makes love at work less of an abstract concept. Nor is it a new one. More than a hundred years ago Kahlil Gibran said, “<em>Work is love made visible</em>.”</p><p>Thinking of an engaged employee as someone who loves their work helps you clarify and crystallise what you need to do to create more universal employee engagement. You can refocus your thinking and take more positive steps to create a more humane workplace that engenders employee engagement and makes it endemic. </p><p><a rel="nofollow" href="http://blog.zealise.com/.a/6a00e54ee26aa1883301bb097edfe7970d-pi" target="_blank"><img src="http://blog.zealise.com/.a/6a00e54ee26aa1883301bb097edfe7970d-500wi" class="align-center"/></a></p><p>When<span> I saw that picture</span> my<span> own doubts and misgivings completely disappeared. It illustrates why love at work offers you so much. It doesn’t just facilitate the strategic alignment that inevitably flows from common purpose and shared values that lead to improved employee engagement. It becomes a way of life that also encompasses:</span></p><ul><li><strong>Happiness at work</strong>: a subject that might also appear to be idealistic and nebulous. Yet it has been popularised by people like <a href="http://kjerulf.com/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Alexander Kjerulf</a>, who has built a successful international consultancy around the subject. He will be holding his 8<sup>th</sup> <a href="http://woohooinc.com/events/happiness-at-work-conference/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">international conference</a> later this year; and</li><li><strong>Freedom at work </strong><strong><sup>™</sup></strong>: another apparently idealistic topic that in practice actively fosters autonomy at work. It has been particularly well promoted by <a href="https://www.worldblu.com/people.php" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Traci Fenton</a> who has also run successful international conferences over the years and will be holding a two day <a href="http://info.worldblu.com/london-masterclass" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Freedom at Work ™ Masterclass</a> in London on 3-4 April, 2017.</li></ul><p>Love at work goes further because it is centred on my ‘Every Individual Matters’ model, which:</p><ul><li>Recognises people – your employees – as assets, and values them as such; thus literally acknowledging value that until now has never been fully recognised or, more importantly, accounted for.</li><li>Offers employee ownership that does not involve equity and that costs employers and employees nothing. This effectively ensures that ‘your business becomes their business,’ creating the common purpose and collaboration that engenders strategic alignment.</li></ul><p>So, even though it took me some time to recognise that “love at work” is not something to be circumspect about, I hope you are smarter and can also see what I have come to see: that it is not ephemeral or cause for titillation but actually something you need to aspire to. For you yourself, and all your people. Can you really afford not to embrace it? </p></div>Good Leadership: It’s All about Valuehttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/good-leadership-it-s-all-about-value2017-02-23T12:33:34.000Z2017-02-23T12:33:34.000ZBay Jordanhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/BayJordan<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2217190?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p>Continuing with the <a href="http://blog.zealise.com/zealise_blog/2017/02/pursuing-good-business-leadership.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" title="Business leadership">recent theme</a> of leadership and the question of whether or not you are a good leader, here is something else you can do to find out. Ask yourself, “Do I focus on value?” </p>
<p><a rel="nofollow" href="http://blog.zealise.com/.a/6a00e54ee26aa1883301b7c8d93a1c970b-pi" target="_blank"><img src="http://blog.zealise.com/.a/6a00e54ee26aa1883301b7c8d93a1c970b-320wi" class="align-left"></a></p>
<p>That might seem like a very strange question. Your instinctive reaction may be to shrug it off and say “Of course!” But I urge you to probe a little deeper. You may recall Oscar Wilde’s line that, “<em>A cynic is someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing!</em>” Unfortunately cynicism seems to be a trap that many business leaders can fall into all too easily. So it may be useful to take a good, honest look at yourself, your behaviour and your thinking, to be sure that you haven’t inadvertently fallen into that trap.</p>
<p><img class="mce-pagebreak">A good way to ensure that you haven’t is to re-evaluate your long term focus. An insidious danger in today’s fast-paced, highly competitive business environment is that it demands an ever greater focus on the short-term. According to a recent <a href="https://hbr.org/2017/02/finally-proof-that-managing-for-the-long-term-pays-off" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Harvard Business Review article</a>, DCLT surveys indicate that, “<em>Most executives feel the balance between short-term accountability and long-term success has fallen out of whack: 65% say the pressure they face has increased in the past five years</em>.” </p>
<p>This is a cause for concern. The report claims that “<em>61% of executives and directors say that they would cut discretionary spending to avoid risking an earnings miss, and a further 47% would delay starting a new project, <strong>even if doing so led to a potential sacrifice in value.</strong></em><strong>”</strong> (My emphasis.) This supports my long-held view that performance management is the tail that is wagging the dog, resulting in too great a focus on management at the expense of leadership. If you want to be a good leader, you need to focus on value.</p>
<p>In fact, the article “<a href="https://hbr.org/2017/02/finally-proof-that-managing-for-the-long-term-pays-off" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" title="Managing for the long term pays off">Finally, Evidence that Managing for the Long Term Pays Off</a>” provides the evidence that I have been seeking for years. According to McKinsey’s research, firms that were identified as focused on the long term significantly outperformed the market as follows:</p>
<ul>
<li>Average revenue +47%</li>
<li>Average earnings +36%</li>
<li>Market capitalisation +58%</li>
<li>Economic profit (i.e. profit after deducting a charge for invested capital) +81%</li>
</ul>
<p>So, I ask again, “Now do you think you are a good leader?” I suspect that, once again, you are less likely to answer positively than you might have done earlier.</p>
<p>Yet, encouraging though this report is, there is more to value than just these traditional measures. It is certainly a step in the right direction that they include “economic profit” but the definition is definitely open to debate. If you truly want to measure value you would need to take account of two other elements that are generally excluded when looking at organisational performance:</p>
<ul>
<li>The value of the human contribution</li>
<li>The environmental cost</li>
</ul>
<p>As I am not qualified to talk about the latter, which is in any case being addressed in more august circles, let’s focus only on the former.</p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1357878?profile=original" target="_self"><img src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1357878?profile=original" width="450" class="align-right"></a>Do you, as a leader, have any idea of the value of your people? If my experience is anything to go by, I will wager you do not. Early in my career I worked for a leading financial services company that decided to close down its private banking operation. This entailed making everyone who worked in the division redundant. Nothing unusual there and a valid commercial decision if it wasn’t making money, you might say. The issue, however, is that when setting up the function only two or three years earlier they had recruited their top 10% performers. This decision effectively meant that the company laid off some of its best people!</p>
<p></p>
<p>This would be bad in any organisation. But in a financial services company, where people are, fundamentally, the working capital of the organisation, it is inexcusable. The executives who made the decision clearly had no idea of the value they were destroying. This is unquestionably due to a deficiency in the way we account for people. The question you need to ask yourself is, “Would you do the same?” It is very likely you would if you have no idea of the value of your people. How then could you call yourself a good leader? </p></div>Good Leadership and Organisational Well-Beinghttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/good-leadership-and-organisational-well-being2017-02-16T13:49:21.000Z2017-02-16T13:49:21.000ZBay Jordanhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/BayJordan<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2217184?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p>Continuing with the <a href="http://blog.zealise.com/zealise_blog/2017/02/pursuing-good-business-leadership.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">last week’s theme</a> and pursuing the subject of leadership and the question of whether or not you are a good leader, another area worth assessing is your organisational well-being. Is this a topic you ever consider and, if so, to what extent? Ideally you will regularly be asking yourself:</p><ol><li>What is the state of our organisational well-being?</li><li>Am I doing enough or could/should I being doing more to improve it?</li></ol><p>Yet you are perhaps unlikely to be doing so. Why? Because there does not even seem to be any generally accepted definition of organisational well-being!</p><p><img class="mce-pagebreak"/>Possibly because it is abstract and thus difficult to empirically assess, even with a workable definition. This also makes it a dubious comparative measure. Globalization and more intense competition result in more weight being given to measures that can be used to assess relative performance. Thus spending time, effort and resources on purely internal measures holds little appeal. </p><p> </p><p>Yet it was Shakespeare who said, <em>“Comparisons are oderous.”</em> Just as individuals need to identify and adhere to personal values to validate their sense of self-worth, so does an organisation. Indeed, any organisation that does not do so, is just as likely “to come off the rails” as an individual. Therefore measuring well-being ought to be an imperative. So, let’s start to come up with a definition. </p><p>My Webster’s dictionary defines well-being as, “<em>Condition of being well, comfortable, happy etc</em>.” while the Google definition is “<em>The state of being comfortable, healthy, or happy</em>”. Organisational well-being thus literally means applying this to an organisation rather than a person. Thus, basically, you could describe organisational well-being as “The state when an organisation is operating comfortably, healthily and happily.”</p><p>But how do you apply such human, and subjective, terms to an organisation which is ultimately a collective of people? What do the terms comfort, health and happiness mean in such a context? Certainly they could do with some clarification. The following table perhaps provides a start.</p><p><a rel="nofollow" class="asset-img-link" href="http://blog.zealise.com/.a/6a00e54ee26aa1883301b8d260f9bc970c-pi"><img alt="Determining the Nature of Organisational Well-Being" border="0" class="asset asset-image at-xid-6a00e54ee26aa1883301b8d260f9bc970c image-full img-responsive align-center" src="http://blog.zealise.com/.a/6a00e54ee26aa1883301b8d260f9bc970c-800wi" title="Determining the Nature of Organisational Well-Being"/></a></p><p>Unfortunately, it makes no attempt to address the “etc.” of the definition which indicates the ambiguity of the subject. It does, however, provide a massive step forward in pointing to some of the measures you might use to measure well-being and which are not immediately apparent from the original terminology. In fact it offers a pretty good basis for a full definition of organisational well-being, as “<strong><em>The state of an organisation in which its people are committed and collaborating, without conflict, to meeting their obligations to ensure the health of the organisation and thus to sustain its ability to effectively and efficiently meet its objectives and fulfil its purpose.”</em></strong> </p><p>This certainly goes some way to filling the void. It also moves beyond the current tendency to depict organisational well-being more in terms of employee health and well-being. This is not to say these aspects are ignored: they are simply incorporated in the total people perspective. For, no matter what your starting point, it is clear that organisational well-being revolves around people. Your organisational well-being is ultimately entirely determined by the way your people perform.</p><p>Assuming we agree on that, this definition provides a reasonable starting point for addressing the subject. It also provides a measure of reassurance. After all, you already have a number of measures in pace to cover many of these points. It is likely that the only ones where you fall short are those dealing with your people. And, as I have said before, this is rooted in the fact that we persist in accounting for people as costs rather than as assets. </p><p>It may be an inconvenient truth, but the fact remains that unless your people enjoy working in your organisation you will never achieve the level of performance you are seeking. I was made aware just how elusive that can be earlier this week when I read a Forbes article “<a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/sebastianbailey/2016/01/26/can-you-catch-rudeness-like-a-cold/#4dc2920c1b64" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" title="Consequences of negative behaviour">Can you catch rudeness like a cold?</a>” Apparently research shows that rude behaviour can be contagious. “<em>Repeated rudeness at work, whether from co-workers or customers, leads to employees associating the workplace with rudeness, thus ‘activating’ the concept of rudeness whenever they are at work: a never-ending cycle.</em>”</p><p>One obvious example missed from here (perhaps diplomatically) is management rudeness. Any unintended slight or lack of appreciation can be perceived as rudeness. And this malaise is just as likely to apply to any other negative behaviour. So you can see that organisational well-being is no easy task. Fortunately, if negatives are contagious there is no reason why positives should not have the opposite effect. This means it is not so much a matter of policing negative behaviour (although obviously it should be highlighted and steps taken to eliminate it) but reinforcing positive behaviour.</p><p>Repeating what I wrote last week, this demands a more humane approach to business. This means optimising your human capital, but doing so less from the point of the benefits to you and rather from the benefits to them. Thus it still means winning employee engagement but by creating a common purpose and providing a culture and environment that provides the autonomy, mastery and purpose that enables people to enjoy their work and creates a sense of satisfaction and self-fulfilment. I call this <em>love at work</em> and I am delighted that the need for this is being increasingly widely recognised, as another article <a href="https://rochellemoulton.com/mixing-love-and-business/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" title="Love at Work">Mixing Love and Business</a> illustrated this week. </p></div>Pursuing Good Business Leadershiphttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/pursuing-good-business-leadership2017-02-09T12:43:10.000Z2017-02-09T12:43:10.000ZBay Jordanhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/BayJordan<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2217177?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1357876?profile=original" target="_self"><img src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1357876?profile=original" width="450" class="align-right"></a>Imagine, right now, that you are attached to a lie-detector and you are asked, “Are you a good business leader?” How would you answer? </p>
<p>If you are supremely confident, you might respond quickly, “Of course!” If you are more modest or less confident you might say, “I think so.” Either way, the likelihood is, like most executives and senior leaders, you are accustomed to empirical performance measures and will therefore have a reasonable basis for your answer. Accustomed to being in control and, perhaps unwilling to come across as unsure, you would be unlikely to stall by asking, “What do you mean by good?”</p>
<p>Yet, ‘good’ is a subjective term, and you would be quite within your rights to seek further clarification, or even to pull out that old consulting chestnut by responding, “It depends.” The fact is, your answer might well depend on who is operating the lie-detector and what lies behind the question or where the emphasis lies. Hopefully, however, the pressure derives from the lie-detector and this is a question you regularly ask yourself anyway. (If it isn’t, you definitely have little right to answer positively. A good leader will always be questioning their performance and looking to do better.)</p>
<p>So let’s move on to take a look at what you are doing to assess your leadership, and perhaps identify pointers for improvement.</p>
<p><img class="mce-pagebreak">Let’s start with productivity. There are two basic questions you need to ask yourself here.</p>
<ol>
<li>Are you satisfied with the productivity of your organisation?</li>
<li>If so, should you be?</li>
</ol>
<p>Productivity is invariably an issue, and the fact is it is always a people issue. In order to improve productivity you need to change the way people behave and/or the way they interact. “What about new systems and technology?” I hear you ask. Certainly they help to shape the environment, but your ability to optimise your return on investment on them depends on:</p>
<ul>
<li>The speed with which they are adopted;</li>
<li>The extent to which they are used;</li>
<li>The proficiency with which they are used.</li>
</ul>
<p>All of these depend on people, as does any reorganisation or organisational change. Thus it is hardly stretching a point to say that effective change ultimately depends on people. And, as a leader, your role is distinguished by the need to oversee both the present operations and the transition to an improved future. By extension, this demands managing your employees effectively. Hardly a surprise since ‘leadership’ identifies the ability to work with people. You cannot be a good leader if you cannot obtain the committed effort of the people you lead, or if you cannot successfully deliver change.</p>
<p>So, with surveys generally identifying that a significant majority (almost 70%) of all organisational change initiatives fail to meet their stated objectives, you might reconsider your answer to the initial question. If you want to improve productivity and create the business transformation that delivers step-change improvement in your organisation’s performance and bottom line results, you need to focus more on your people. </p>
<p>For Traci Fenton at <a href="http://www.worldblu.com/leadership.php" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Worldblu</a> this begins with creating greater <em>freedom at work</em>. For Alexander Kjerulf at <a href="http://woohooinc.com/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Woohoo Inc</a> it is about creating <em>happiness at work</em>. (If that sounds too unbusinesslike for you check out his very good <a href="http://positivesharing.com/2017/02/the-20-most-common-objections-to-happiness-at-work-and-why-theyre-wrong/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">video</a> addressing any likely objections you may have.) Both approaches will help you become a good (or better) manager, because they start with people. They just have different starting points.</p>
<p style="text-align: left;">Ultimately a focus on your people entails a more humane approach to business. This still means optimising your human capital, but doing so less from the point of the benefits to you and rather from the benefits to them. Thus it still means winning employee engagement but by creating a common purpose and providing a culture and environment that provides the autonomy, mastery and purpose that enables people to enjoy their work and creates a sense of satisfaction and self-fulfillment.</p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1357931?profile=original" target="_self"><img src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1357931?profile=original" width="450" class="align-center"></a></p>
<p>The ‘Every Individual Matters’ Model offers you exactly that. A framework of shared purpose it underpins a new employer/employee relationship with little or none of the innate conflict that has historically cursed industrial relations. You might, perhaps, even call it <em>love at work </em>but it’s not the name that matters; it’s the results. And those could exceed anything you might currently contemplate. </p></div>How do you view change?https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/how-do-you-view-change2017-02-02T14:38:15.000Z2017-02-02T14:38:15.000ZBay Jordanhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/BayJordan<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2217162?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p>Change is an integral part of life. So much so that we are often completely unaware of it. We simply wake up one day to the realization that something familiar isn’t quite the same as we thought it was.</p><p>We experienced a good example of this over the Christmas holidays, visiting our young grandchildren for almost a month. As you would expect, the children we met on the first day were very different from the young children we had last seen. More surprising, however, was how much they changed <em>during</em> our time with them. It wasn’t only that, even after a couple of weeks, they were so proficient at things they couldn’t do when we arrived. Nor was it just the delicious festive food that made them feel heavier. We were sure that they also grew physically!</p><p>The fact is change is continuous. In the 21<sup>st</sup> Century, however, we are perhaps more aware of it than ever, and the fact that – due to the massive technological advances – the pace seems to be faster and the demands on us more urgent. So much so, that ‘change management’ has not only become part of the lexicon, but a recognized skill and much sought after competency. But are we being misguided?</p><p><img class="mce-pagebreak"/>The term ‘change management’ suggests that change is specific and implies that it happens at a specific point in time and can therefore be manipulated. This doesn’t jell with the concept of change being ongoing. The ongoing nature of change makes it more evolutionary, and thus far more difficult to manage. It also reinforces the need to make your organisation more organic – as I described <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/business-leaders-step-up-your-role-pioneer-bay-jordan?trk=mp-author-card" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" title="Business Leaders as Pioneers">last week</a>. </p><p>In his book Sapiens, Yuval Noah Harari writes, <em>“Every point in history is a crossroad. A single travelled road leads from the past to the present, but myriad paths fork off into the future.” </em>In other words, history is actually the outcome of decisions made in the continuum that is time. This makes it less deterministic and more haphazard than you might think. After all, no one can control events for every moment of the day. And the same is true in business.</p><p>Substitute the word ‘business’ for ‘history’ and you can just as easily say “Every point in business is a crossroad.” This emphasises the point. Like history, business performance is an outcome. But it is the outcome of a myriad of possibilities. To be successful you need to be able to respond to any one of those. And managing change is more often than not a case of focussing on one in particular.</p><p>All too often, things only work until they don’t. By the time you realise that they are no longer working it is too late. You end up scrambling to identify a new solution and stuck on the change management treadmill trying to introduce it. Trying to manage change is a mug’s game, and success will always be less than you intended. You will do far better to create an organic culture that responds to change as it happens. You will be less likely to find yourself scrambling for a solution and trying to create and direct a change because it might have already evolved. </p><p>Recently popular management blogger Seth Godin wrote, <em>“Intentional action is the hallmark of a professional</em>.” The <a href="http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2017/02/but-when-will-you-abandon-it.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" title="Not if, but when">context</a> of this statement is the need to replace conventional systems that he implies are already obsolete, but which still prevail. As such it may seem like another call for more effective change management. Hopefully, you won’t fall into that trap.</p><p>Of course it goes without saying that you need to think before you act. But your business depends on the way your people act. Your people are the ones who create that myriad of possibilities. Therefore every individual matters and your intention needs to be on creating an organic environment and a culture where actions are shaped by a common purpose that makes people more adaptable and responsive to change. That is how you ensure that change evolves naturally rather than as a top down – and often too late – requirement.</p></div>Management Evolution: Where are you at?https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/management-evolution-where-are-you-at2017-01-20T10:26:46.000Z2017-01-20T10:26:46.000ZBay Jordanhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/BayJordan<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2217144?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p>You probably know that, if you put a frog in cold water and slowly heat it, it will eventually boil to death. This fact was popularised by management guru Charles Handy in his 1989 book, “The Age of Unreason.” But even though you know the parable, do you ever stop to think about it, its implications and its relevance? After all, Handy must have had a reason for telling it.</p><p>For me, the story is an analogy for evolution, where change is rarely immediately noticeable. In describing how a frog, normally averse to hot water and aware of the danger it poses, fails to act when the change is incremental, Handy illustrates the danger of gradual change and the way we can be totally oblivious to it. This is a constant danger and particularly pertinent today in the way we run our organisations and institutions: even though we acknowledge change as one of our biggest management challenges. </p><p>The fact is, despite acknowledging this and scrambling to adapt, we persist in using past approaches which are neither appropriate nor effective. If you doubt this, just compare the way you are managing today with the way you managed ten or twenty years ago. Despite claims that “command and control” management is dead and demands for “Management 2.0”, you very likely rely on traditional structures, tools and performance measures. </p><p><a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/flat-hierarchies-just-another-step-wrong-direction-niels-pflaeging">Flatter hierarchies: Just another step in the wrong direction</a>: an article that I came across recently, illustrates the challenge you face perfectly. It effectively highlights “flatter hierarchies” – the strategic objective of so many organisations today – as an oxymoron, depicting them as a relic of the Industrial Age and therefore passé, and describes the need for “inside out” value creation. Unfortunately, however, it also identifies “decentralization” as the solution. This shows how hard it is to move from old ideas and why management change seems more evolutionary than we would like to think. It raises the possible spectres of:</p><ul><li>Perpetuating the historic centralization/decentralization cycle that provides so much work for management consultants; and </li><li>Leaving the door open for restoring hierarchy in the future. </li></ul><p>The author makes a valid point when he says, <i>“Value creation from the inside-out and towards the market is a key principle for any kind of organization.”</i> This implies the constant interaction between “the outside” or external environment, and “the inside” with the latter responding readily, rapidly and reasonably to the intelligence it receives. For me that is effectively a call for a more organic approach to management, rather than the mechanical one that underpins hierarchy and remains the lasting legacy of the industrial age. I just wish the author had identified it in this way rather than reactionary “decentralization.”</p><p>An organic approach demands:</p><ul><li>A clear sense of purpose;</li><li>A clear understanding of the operational values;</li><li>The autonomy to act independently in response to “non-standard” or unexpected situations.</li></ul><p>Apart from anything else, that is the only way to ensure the organisation is not side-swiped by change and is able to identify, adapt and respond to changing needs, demands or circumstances. </p><p>This effectively entails remembering Andrew Carnegie’s words, “<i>The only irreplaceable capital an organization possesses is the knowledge and ability of its people. The productivity of that capital depends on how effectively people share their competence with those who can use it.”</i> (I don’t know when he said that, but the fact he died 98 years ago shows how slow the pace of management evolution has been.) Understanding this is to recognise that every individual matters, and is the key to ensuring a sustainable and successful organisation. It will not only ensure you evolve but accelerate the process and secure your place at the top of the food chain.</p></div>Developing Resilience - Get Organisedhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/developing-resilience-get-organised2017-01-06T08:48:18.000Z2017-01-06T08:48:18.000ZRobin Hillshttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/RobinHills<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2217314?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p class="_graf_p"><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1357863?profile=original" target="_self"><img src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1357863?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" width="750" class="align-full"></a></p>
<ul>
<li>Create structures and methods to bring order and stability on your terms<br> <br></li>
<li>Set realistic goals for yourself<br> <br></li>
<li>Expect things to work out<br> <br></li>
<li>Manage the moment with calmness and clarity of purpose</li>
</ul>
<p class="_graf_p">Emotions that drain and stop you from getting organised are <i>hopelessness</i>, <i>fear</i> and <i>discomfort</i>.</p>
<p class="_graf_p"><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/XESz_fVcLHg?wmode=opaque" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p class="_graf_p">Emotions that facilitate you getting organised are <i>esteem</i>, <i>pride </i>and <i>enthusiasm</i>.</p>
<ul>
<li><b>Create a plan</b> or draw up a list of tasks<br> <br></li>
<li><b>Create systems and processes</b> that make you efficient<br> <br></li>
<li><b>Be realistic</b> about how you can manage your time<br> <br></li>
<li><b>Avoid putting off anything</b> that eventually needs to be done<br> <br></li>
<li><b>Tackle big projects</b> by breaking them down into <b>smaller </b><b>chunks</b> and start to work on them one chunk at a time<br> <br></li>
<li>Be aware of, and <b>avoid, anything</b> that <b>you find distracting</b></li>
</ul>
<p class="_graf_p">Taken from "<em>The Authority Guide to Emotional Resilience; Strategies to Manage Stress and Weather Storms in the Workplace</em>" - published May 2016.</p>
<p class="_graf_p"><a rel="nofollow" href="https://niume.com/stalker/stalker.php?link=https://goo.gl/PR7Iln" target="_blank">Available to order from Amazon</a></p></div>If “No Man is an Island”, then “Every Individual Matters!”https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/if-no-man-is-an-island-then-every-individual-matters2016-11-24T10:17:18.000Z2016-11-24T10:17:18.000ZBay Jordanhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/BayJordan<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2217112?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p>As a human being you cannot survive on your own. It doesn’t matter how capable or self-sufficient you consider yourself to be, it is practically impossible. Interdependence is an inescapable fact of life. If you are a manager or leader, you definitely depend on other people to achieve results. And, even if you aren’t, you are still likely to rely on other people to be able to get your job done. This makes managing relationships an essential life-skill.</p><p>John Donne encapsulated this when he said, <em>“No man is an island, entire of itself: every man is a piece of the continent.”</em> For most of us, this “continent” is the organisation where we work. This is significant because, if you are a “piece” of the organisation, it makes the organisation itself the ‘framework of relationships.’ This begs the question, “To what extent do you recognise this and regard your organisation as a ‘framework of relationships.’?</p><p><img class="mce-pagebreak"/>This is perhaps a more profound question than you may think. Why? It makes your people paramount. After all, looking at relationships inevitably means beginning with your people. And that is a complete inversion of the traditional management approach. Yet it isn’t perhaps as radical as it may first seem.</p><p>You can best appreciate the idea if you think about your organisation as a water pipe. The quality of the water the pipe delivers and the pressure of the flow, ultimately depends on the quality of both the process and the pipe.</p><p><a rel="nofollow" class="asset-img-link" href="http://blog.zealise.com/.a/6a00e54ee26aa1883301b7c8b34e89970b-pi"><img alt="Waste _ 50408274_s" class="asset asset-image at-xid-6a00e54ee26aa1883301b7c8b34e89970b img-responsive align-center" src="http://blog.zealise.com/.a/6a00e54ee26aa1883301b7c8b34e89970b-320wi" title="Waste _ 50408274_s"/></a></p><p>A pipe full of holes means that you are faced with considerable leakage and considerably reduced pressure. Plus, any break in the flow could allow impurities or other undesirable elements to infiltrate the water. Lack of employee engagement has a similar effect. You may not consider this to be a problem if your customer is satisfied with the end result and your other stakeholders are not aware of, or concerned about, the waste. But just think how much better your performance and the results would be if your pipe didn’t have all those holes.</p><p><a rel="nofollow" class="asset-img-link" href="http://blog.zealise.com/.a/6a00e54ee26aa1883301b7c8b34e9c970b-pi"><img alt="Trickle 7441848_s" class="asset asset-image at-xid-6a00e54ee26aa1883301b7c8b34e9c970b img-responsive align-center" src="http://blog.zealise.com/.a/6a00e54ee26aa1883301b7c8b34e9c970b-320wi" title="Trickle 7441848_s"/></a>Looking only at the trickle at the end, you have no idea whether the flow is normal or not, or whether it is even the best you can expect. Well, you are in a pretty similar situation when you do not start with your people. You have no means of identifying whether there are holes in your pipe or of gauging the potential loss; which is likely to be significant.</p><p>Thus all I am asking is that you continue to accept the more familiar piece of John Donne’s quote that “No man is an island” and revise it as “No man is an island, therefore every individual matters.” For, if you recognise your organisation as a “framework of relationships”, you will understand the addendum not just as a corollary but also as an imperative for the well-being of your organisation. </p><p>After all, it is true: ‘Every Individual Matters.’ </p></div>The New Case for Building a Better Business Modelhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/the-new-case-for-building-a-better-business-model2016-11-17T10:28:03.000Z2016-11-17T10:28:03.000ZBay Jordanhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/BayJordan<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2217101?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p>You couldn’t have made it up! In a world where the excesses of business have fuelled strong – sometimes violent – protests against capitalism and corporate malfeasance, Donald Trump won the US election because he was perceived as a businessman! Despite the onslaught of attacks on his personal character and his suitability for the role, he became the first man in history to become US President without any military or political experience whatsoever, because of his business credentials and the hope that this would enable him to bring about change.</p><p>This is like giving your most vociferous, disgruntled customer, who knows nothing about the ins and outs of your operations, control over your entire organisation, albeit on a far grander scale. You can imagine how concerned your other stakeholders would be if you were to do that. So it is hardly surprising that Trump’s election is causing consternation and creating a backlash. Inevitably people are taking stock of the implications and wondering how it is going to affect them.</p><p>Yet, in all the post-election reflection, there is one aspect that does not appear to have been considered in any great depth. And it is one that, perhaps, warrants the greatest thought: “What are the implications for business?” Without any doubt they are significant.</p><p><img class="mce-pagebreak"/>Voting for a businessman is a tacit recognition of the significant role of business in the economy. As such, it makes sense. But, for those concerned about the political and economic clout of big business, it is tantamount to putting the poacher in charge of the game, and means, metaphorically, holding their noses to do so. As such it is an indication of how extremely disgruntled they are. Consequently, if changes aren’t forthcoming, or if there is no improvement in living standards, the next step may well be revolution. That would be bad for business and puts pressure on business to change – and quickly.</p><p>Unfortunately, Trump’s record as a businessman does not show him to be an innovator. Nor did his campaign do anything to suggest otherwise. Thus, miraculous though powers of persuasion seem to be, he is unlikely, even as President, to affect the necessary changes to avoid revolution. We are already close, with the protests, strikes and riots that are proliferating around the world. It therefore seems clear that business itself needs to step up to the plate urgently, take the lead and change its modus operandi.</p><p>Of course this is not a new cry. Leading thinkers like <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.garyhamel.com/author" target="_blank" title="Gary Hamel Leading Business Thinker">Gary Hamel</a> have been calling for a new approach to business for the past couple of decades. Yet there seems to have been remarkably little progress. Now, however, it is becoming urgent and self-interest demands it.</p><p>Fortunately, despite everything, it isn’t really as difficult as it seems. Ultimately, it boils down to recognising the humanity of people and the role they play in organisations. When organisations accept that ‘Every Individual Matters’ they will emancipate, empower and engage their employees more; creating a happier, more productive workplace with an environment that meets both the individual’s and the organisation’s needs and shapes a better society.</p><p>But it all begins with you recognising that ‘Every Individual Matters.’</p></div>Securing the Successful Future of Your Organisationhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/securing-the-successful-future-of-your-organisation2016-11-10T14:03:57.000Z2016-11-10T14:03:57.000ZBay Jordanhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/BayJordan<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2217079?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p>Less than 3% of leadership time is spent on collectively building a view of the future. At least, so said Gary Hamel and CK Prahalad in their book “Competing for the Future.” You might find some comfort in the fact that shocking statistic is over two decades old. But, even if things have improved subsequently, it is cause for concern.</p>
<p>Both the pace of change, and the fact that 70% of change initiatives, <a rel="nofollow" href="https://hbr.org/2013/04/change-management-needs-to-cha" target="_blank">reportedly</a>, fail to achieve their objectives, suggest that proportion should be significantly higher. This implies a need to take action to improve matters. Before identifying how to do that, however, you might ask, “Why, given the rate of change, do leaders not spend more time on this?” After all, safeguarding the future is surely a primary leadership responsibility. </p>
<p><img class="mce-pagebreak">Any answer to that question is likely to be subjective. The way to find a more objective answer would be to research how executives spend their time. After all, by virtue of who they are, how leaders spend their time must indicate what they consider to be more important. Furthermore, if their judgement is sound, the percentage of time they spend on shaping the future is unlikely to change, meaning efforts to increase it could be both fruitless and counter-productive.</p>
<p>Lacking the resources to research how executives do spend their time, my only option was to turn to our 21<sup>st</sup> century oracle, Google. Searching “How do executives spend their time?” threw up some pretty mixed results, with many referring to CEOs only, which I ignored as “leaders” includes more than CEOs.</p>
<p>The first result was this generic 2014 <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/236853" target="_blank">infographic</a>. The only other relevant item on the first page of the results was another 2014 article, highlighting the results of a global <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.strategyand.pwc.com/global/home/press/displays/what-executives-spend-time-on" target="_blank">Strategy& survey</a> on whether executives spent their time on the <em>right</em> things. Interestingly the results show that executives themselves do not think so! Not only is this scary, but it arguably indicates:</p>
<ul>
<li>Executives need to manage their time better;</li>
<li>As initially assumed, executives <em>do</em> need to spend more time on shaping the future;</li>
<li>It will be difficult to increase the proportion of time spent on this;</li>
<li>Any or all of the above.</li>
</ul>
<p>The next page of results only revealed more of the same. It appears that much of the questioning revolved around strategy and also indicated that executives felt they did not spend enough time on this. Whether or not you agree that strategy and shaping the future are synonymous, this suggests that executives are failing to optimise (their own and their organisation’s) performance; to safeguard the sustainability of the organisation, and to prepare properly for the future. </p>
<p>Possibly this is because they are too pre-occupied with performance measurement. The growth of “big data” and the creation of ever more systems and controls to regulate and review everything, keep informed and prevent surprises, demanding more meetings, more preparation and more follow-up than ever before and has them on an unwitting treadmill. </p>
<p>This is a result of not trusting, valuing and developing employees properly. When you recognise that people are the life-blood of your organisation, and that organisational success depends on each person optimising their own capabilities, being more aligned, and fulfilling their own potential, you can redirect your efforts. This entails recognising that ‘Every Individual Matters’ and creating an organic structure where, through common purpose and a clear understanding of their role, people can self-manage without constant supervision.</p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1357847?profile=original" target="_self"><img src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1357847?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" width="750" class="align-left"></a>Recognising that ‘Every Individual Matters’ empowers your employees and engages them more. It makes them more responsive and adaptable, and is by far the best way to anticipate, identify and react to external factors and thus to shape the future. This is the ultimate win-win because it internalises and integrates change, reducing both your responsibility for, and the amount of time you spend, instigating it. But it all begins with recognising that ‘Every Individual Matters.’</p></div>No Mas! It’s Time to Make an End!https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/no-mas-it-s-time-to-make-an-end2016-10-27T11:37:07.000Z2016-10-27T11:37:07.000ZBay Jordanhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/BayJordan<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2217068?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p>You could count all the words of Spanish I know on one hand, but “No Mas!” is a phrase I remember well (thanks to an historical boxing match last century.) But it took on a new relevance this past week.</p><p>This stemmed from a TED talk, “<a rel="nofollow" href="https://youtu.be/F6Qo8IDsVNg" target="_blank" title="Salvation from bad meetings">How to Save the World (or at Least Yourself) from Bad Meetings</a>” in which David Grady coins the phrase “Mindless Acceptance Syndrome” or “MAS.” As you might expect from the talk title, he is referring here to an unthinking acceptance of attendance at meetings, something he definitely sees as needing to stop. If, like most people, your life is plagued by meetings, you will find it worth the less than 7 minutes investment of your time. For me, though, it had a deeper significance than just meetings.</p><p>There were two primary, ultimately inextricably linked, reasons for this.</p><ol><li>MAS seems a clever synonym for conventional wisdom, and the blind deference we all too often give it.</li><li>The statement “<em>I wish I had those two hours back</em>” and the recognition that this unproductive time is actually “<em>stealing.</em>” </li></ol><p>Attendance at meetings is just one of any number of examples of both. Even if you have ever considered the organisational value of the time your people spend in meetings, you are unlikely to have ever considered the personal value of that time. That’s because the oversight is rooted in a classic MAS: that of seeing your people as just a resource. You can hardly be blamed for that, for management and accounting tradition compel you to treat your people as costs. Yet, ultimately this is innately counter-productive.</p><p>You need only consider the extent to which investment decisions are justified by reducing employee numbers, to see this. How dehumanising is that? People are the life-blood of your organisation: what keeps it functioning. Your employee engagement, continuous improvement and enhanced productivity initiatives all confirm you know this. They entail recognising and respecting the contribution of your people. So any actions which send a different message undermine those efforts and everything else you are striving for. Thus, while it’s undoubtedly true to say you cannot you expect your people to be more productive if you fail to recognise the negative personal impact that meetings can have, there is much more to it than that.</p><p>That is why it is time to pause and consider what this and other MAS are costing your organisation, and, like Roberto Duran, to say “No MAS!” But, for you, the consequences will be far more positive. You might start, as Grady suggests, by reviewing the nature of meetings in your organisation, but that is diving into the detail. I suggest, rather, that you start by recognising that your people are investing their lives in working for you.</p><p>When you do, you will understand that ‘Every Individual Matters.’ Perhaps then, you will be ready to explore how my ‘Every Individual Matters ‘ Model will help. </p></div>Engendering & Embedding Engagement for a High-Performance Culturehttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/engendering-embedding-engagement-for-a-high-performance-culture2016-10-13T11:17:03.000Z2016-10-13T11:17:03.000ZBay Jordanhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/BayJordan<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2217051?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p>It often seems that people stand in the way of their own success. They get so focused on whatever they are trying to achieve that their thinking becomes habit, they fail to see, let alone consider, other options and their thought patterns and consequent behaviours become shackles. This inevitably limits outcomes and inhibits their own success. That is why there is more than a little validity to the old cliché, “You are your own worst enemy.” It takes an outsider to identify their issues, and even then they may not always change.</p><p>So perhaps, rather than a cliché, we should consider it as a statement of fact. Doing so immediately makes it universal and demands remedial action. Particularly if you recognise the implication that it also applies to any CEO or business leader! Then you are compelled to take a closer look at yourself and your role, and ask yourself, “How am I impeding my success and that of my organisation or team?” </p><p>Opening yourself up to this possibility is only the beginning. It does not provide any answers in and of itself. Furthermore every situation is unique and different which makes it unlikely that there is a single solution. Yet, much of our rigid thinking is the result of inadvertent acceptance of collective thought, whether it is called ‘conventional wisdom’ or whether it is simply unconscious influence. Recognising that provides a good starting point in the quest for solutions, not least because it suggests that your issues might not be as unique as you think.</p><p>Let me illustrate what I am getting at.</p><p><img class="mce-pagebreak" alt=""/>This week I came across an article entitled, “<a rel="nofollow" href="http://chiefexecutive.net/building-high-performance-highly-engaged-culture-pressure/" target="_blank" title="Building a High-Performance, Highly Engaged Culture">Building a High-Performance, Highly Engaged Culture.</a>” It begins with the statement that, “<em>Pressure to deliver short-term results and accommodate Millennial employees complicates the culture challenge</em>.” You may agree, but it is a good example of how you can be susceptible to what we might call “the wider consciousness.” Millennials are not a sub-species of humanity: they are simply a modern generation that has grown up with greater exposure to technology and rapid change than any previous generation. Perhaps their aspirations are also higher but, as human beings, they still have many of the same needs that people have always had: a decent livelihood offering the chance to have a nice home, raise their children comfortably, enjoy their leisure and minimise the risks of ill-health or any other misfortune, possibly with the opportunity to broaden their experience and travel. Consequently, as an employer, I would suggest that your primary responsibility is to create an environment that delivers this.</p><p>This means your challenge as a leader is to remedy the historical failure to treat employees as humans, rather than to classify and meet the needs attached to different generations. In fact, this is implied in the article itself, with:</p><ul><li>PURE’s commitment to, “<em>Help our members [i.e. employees] become smarter, safer and more resilient so they can pursue their passion with greater confidence.</em>”</li><li>Boeing’s recognition that “the magic sauce” for creating a competitive culture is that, <em>“It’s got to align with individuals”</em> and <em>“That ‘alignment’ with the aspirations of employees is key.”</em></li></ul><p>Both make the employee primary and recognise that, ultimately, a high-performance, highly engaged culture depends on the extent to which employees feel fulfilled. Identifying them as a solution for the Millennial issue sells them short and does everyone a disservice. The fact is they also solve every one of the other challenges identified in the article, and effectively prove that ‘Every Individual Matters’.</p><p>In any case, if everyone is their own worst enemy, it follows that, to engender and embed engagement for a high-performance, you need to lead – and live – by recognising that ‘Every Individual Matters’.</p></div>Developing Resilience - Be Flexible and Adaptablehttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/developing-resilience-be-flexible-and-adaptable2016-10-07T08:24:57.000Z2016-10-07T08:24:57.000ZRobin Hillshttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/RobinHills<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2217223?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1357844?profile=original" target="_self"><img src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1357844?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" width="750" class="align-center"></a></p>
<ul>
<li>Be sensitive to changes in your environment</li>
<li>Adapt quickly to what is happening</li>
<li>Learn from life constantly</li>
<li>Remain true to your purpose/vision while making room for others’ ideas and opportunities</li>
</ul>
<p>Emotions that drain and stop you from being flexible and adaptable are <em>fear</em>, <em>disappointment</em> and <em>anxiety</em>.</p>
<p><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_cQxiwcfiWw?wmode=opaque" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>Emotions that facilitate you being flexible and adaptable are <em>esteem</em>, <em>contentment</em> and <em>optimism</em>.</p>
<ul>
<li>Anticipate change so that you can be prepared for it with a series of contingencies</li>
<li>Accept that situations are going to change</li>
<li>Positively move forward rather than dwelling on how unreasonable or unfair the changes may seem</li>
<li>Remain focused on your personal goals and adapt how you work to accommodate the change</li>
</ul>
<p></p>
<p>From <strong><span style="color: #888888;">"The Authority Guide to Emotional Resilience in Business: Strategies to Manage Stress and Weather Storms in the Workplace"</span> </strong>by Robin Hills</p>
<p><a rel="nofollow" href="https://goo.gl/PR7Iln" target="_blank">Available from Amazon</a></p></div>Truth, Trust and True Leadershiphttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/truth-trust-and-true-leadership2016-10-06T11:53:13.000Z2016-10-06T11:53:13.000ZBay Jordanhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/BayJordan<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2217040?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p><em>At any level of management, you took the job knowing that the role put you in charge and on the hot seat for every success and failure on the team — no exceptions.” </em>Those words from Liz Ryan pack a powerful punch and certainly grabbed my attention. I don’t know whether you will agree or not, and in any case you need to read the whole article “<a href="http://www.borderless.net/stop-blaming-your-employees-for-your-leadership-mistakes/" target="_blank" title="Leadership mistakes">Stop Blaming Your Employees for Your Leadership Mistakes</a>” to appreciate all the lady is saying. I do hope, however, that you will agree it is food for thought.<a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1357841?profile=original" target="_self"><img src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1357841?profile=RESIZE_480x480" width="320" class="align-right"></a></p>
<p>That is definitely the case with her later line that “<em>If you blame people for your stumbles, you won’t see your own part in the incident.”</em> This had me wondering whether a failure to understand this is perhaps the root cause of the science-practitioner gap in leadership that I described in my <a rel="nofollow" href="http://blog.zealise.com/zealise_blog/2016/09/how-to-improve-real-world-leadership-practice.html" target="_blank" title="How to improve real-world leadership practice">last blog</a>. With trust increasingly becoming a major topic in management and leadership circles this is definitely a question worth following up. </p>
<p><img class="mce-pagebreak" alt="">Trust only flourishes where people tell the truth. Ryan recognizes this and suggests that managers need to tell the truth more, and takes up the cudgels by opining that, <em>“In the western management tradition, there is no need for managers to tell the truth about the ‘sticky issues’ … since the workplace is populated by humans.”</em> With ‘sticky issues’ basically meaning ‘human topics’, she seems to consider that managers have convinced themselves that they do not need to talk about them. Unfortunately the only reason she offers for this is implicit in the phrase “populated by humans”, as if to suggest that our common humanity makes it redundant. I am not sure this enough.</p>
<p>Similarly, I think her examples also fall short. You would find it hard to disagree with the point that being honest is essential for trust between colleagues, and to create effective teamwork. It is when she suggests that it is also your duty to speak the truth to those higher-up that she is perhaps ambiguous and a little disingenuous. She writes. <em>“Your employees found the strength to tell you the truth and now you have to find the strength to tell your leaders the truth as well.”</em> Ryan describes this as, <em>“your duty to your leaders, customers and shareholders.”</em> Given the title of her article, the omission of employees from that list is surprising and regrettable.</p>
<p>At the very least, honesty from your employees demands reciprocity. If you do not act or, just as importantly, are not seen to act upon what your employees tell you, you cannot expect them to tell you the truth. You will end up with an environment that is completely self-delusional, counter-productive and potentially disastrous. I experienced this personally when I was responsible for delivering a growth budget for a financial services company. After empirically proving that the foundations for growth targets did not exist and demonstrated the opposite, I was not only ignored, but dismissed. Two years later the company went bankrupt. The Deepwater Horizons disaster provides a similar and better known example.</p>
<p><span><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1357869?profile=original" target="_self"><img src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1357869?profile=RESIZE_480x480" width="320" class="align-left"></a></span></p>
<p><span>Consequently, I think Ryan has pulled her punches. With her headline suggesting that </span><em>you</em><span> are blaming your employees for your leadership mistakes you might feel differently. But, until you understand that the buck stops with you as the leader, you </span><em>are</em><span> blaming them. Only when you recognize and accept that, </span><em>“You are on the hot seat for every success and failure on the team — no exceptions,”</em><span> will you rise to the challenge and be a true leader. Then you will understand that, when productivity isn't all you want, you are to blame. And, when you understand that, you will truly understand why ‘Every Individual Matters.’</span></p></div>How to Improve Real-World Leadership Practicehttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/how-to-improve-real-world-leadership-practice2016-09-29T10:01:55.000Z2016-09-29T10:01:55.000ZBay Jordanhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/BayJordan<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2217037?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p><em>“The science of leadership is well established.” </em>So says Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, a Professor of Business Psychology at University College London. This premise enables him to conclude,<em> “There is no real need to advance it in order to improve real-world practices. We should focus instead on applying what we already know, and ignoring what we think we know that isn’t true.”</em> (“<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.borderless.net/what-science-tells-us-about-leadership-potential/" target="_blank" title="What science tells us about leadership potential">What Science Tells Us About Leadership Potential</a>”, taken from HBR.) </p><p>That makes it sound so simple. Would that it were so! Given the professor’s own statements that, <em>“Its key studies are unfamiliar to most people, including an alarmingly large proportion of those in charge of evaluating and selecting leaders</em>” and “<em>This science-practitioner gap explains our disappointing state of affairs</em>”, we appear to have a major problem.</p><p>Several questions spring instantly to mind.<img class="mce-pagebreak" alt=""/></p><ul><li>If the science of leadership is so well established, why isn’t it more widely known?</li><li>Why aren’t the people who need to be more aware of it, at the very least, more familiar with it?</li><li>What is the stuff “we know for sure that isn’t true” and why isn’t it being identified and eradicated?</li></ul><p>Lack of employee engagement costing the US economy $550 billion a year in lost productivity is reason enough to give the subject greater prominence. Unfortunately that is an aggregate figure and individual businesses either don’t recognise it as a problem affecting them or – if they do – are unable to do much to change it: something which itself demands taking stronger action.</p><p>Let’s take the blinkers off and admit the problem affects you, and to the same extent as the USA. And, to take this macro-economic figure and translate it into a realistic number for your business, let’s assume a simple formula of:</p><p style="text-align: center;"><strong>Lost Profit = (Profit/Engaged %) x Disengaged %</strong></p><p>With only 30% of the employees engaged, and assuming you made a profit of $1.5 million, the cost of your lost productivity would be:</p><p style="text-align: center;"><strong>(1,500,000/30%) x 70%</strong></p><p style="text-align: center;"><strong>=$3,500,000</strong></p><p>(You can double check that by saying that if you had 100% employee engagement your profits would be $1.5 million divided by 30% multiplied by 100% or $5 million, and the difference between $5 million and $1.5 million is $3.5 million.)</p><p>This means you are leaving an awful lot of money – more than twice what you are actually making – on the table! You have to think this makes employee engagement a major problem; especially when – as the professor points out – it is poor leadership that makes employees feel disengaged. Consequently there is a pressing need to find answers to those earlier questions.</p><p>Thinking about possible solutions I cannot help thinking about small children and the lessons they teach us. I have often previously cited their need for independence, but that lesson is being brought home vigorously right now by my two year old grandson. His response to being asked to do anything is, “Self do it!” It seems to me that epitomizes engagement and identifies the essential ingredients for practical leadership.</p><p><a rel="nofollow" class="asset-img-link" href="http://blog.zealise.com/.a/6a00e54ee26aa1883301bb093c6c6c970d-pi"><img class="asset asset-image at-xid-6a00e54ee26aa1883301bb093c6c6c970d image-full img-responsive" title="Practical Leadership - Ingredients" src="http://blog.zealise.com/.a/6a00e54ee26aa1883301bb093c6c6c970d-800wi" alt="Practical Leadership - Ingredients" border="0"/></a></p><p>The quantities are up to you and depend on the situation, but you need to supply:</p><ul><li>The purpose for learning and development</li><li>The encouragement that builds perseverance and persistence</li><li>The opportunities for application; understanding that mastery takes practice.</li><li>The recognition of the effort that is being put in with rewards that are commensurate.</li><li>The provisions (environment and tools) that nurture self-development.</li></ul><p>Only when you blend all these together, will you close the gap and create a cultural environment where ‘Every Individual Matters’ and knows it, and consequently is an engaged employee and a natural leader, able to take full responsibility for their role and what they need to accomplish it: a critical requirement for today’s fast-paced economy.</p></div>How The People Paradox Negates Employee Engagement Effortshttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/how-the-people-paradox-negates-employee-engagement-efforts2016-09-22T11:27:42.000Z2016-09-22T11:27:42.000ZBay Jordanhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/BayJordan<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2217028?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=395"></div><div><p>Have you ever heard of The People Paradox? I hadn’t either, although I was well aware of Lord Acton’s famous quote that, “<em>Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.</em>” Well, apparently that’s not just a bon mot: power does corrupt. Certainly according to research cited in the HBR.</p><p>In an October 2016 HBR article entitled <a rel="nofollow" href="https://hbr.org/2016/10/dont-let-power-corrupt-you%E2%80%A6" target="_blank">Don’t Let Power Corrupt You</a> Dacher Kilter describes how twenty years of research has shown him how, in all types of work environments, <em>“people rise on the basis of their good qualities, but their behaviour grows increasingly worse as they move up the ladder.</em>” That's 'The People Paradox.' I am sure you can think of instances in your own experience that support this. I still haven’t forgotten the CEO who completely ignored me when I was introduced to him by my Vice-President manager and added insult to injury by proceeding to question him about me as if I wasn’t there!</p><p>The fact that such behaviour seems objectionable makes the paradox credible. And, arguably, underpins the thinking behind employee engagement efforts. Yet, objectionable though it seems, one has to question why such “bad” behaviour is so pervasive and widespread. Is it possible that this behaviour is “built-into” our DNA as social animals? After all, it is not unique to humans: the consequences for any creature that strays from the clear pecking order of its group can be swift and severe. The fact is, any sort of community almost invariably necessitates some kind of hierarchy. And the hierarchy needs to be sustained.</p><p>The consequences of this are profound, because it would mean that the “paradox” is not in fact a paradox. Rather it is an entirely natural phenomenon, which means that this “corruption” is in fact anything but. This, in turn, makes it a lot harder to eliminate than one might envisage, and may well explain why, despite all the efforts to improve employee engagement, the results seem to be negligible.</p><p>Good as the remedies identified in <a rel="nofollow" href="https://hbr.org/2016/10/dont-let-power-corrupt-you%E2%80%A6" target="_blank">the article</a> may seem, because they appear to be looking at the problem the wrong way, they are highly unlikely to provide any meaningful, lasting solution. Finding this necessitates:</p><ol start="1"><li>Establishing whether this “corruption” is really a problem; and – if it is:</li><li>Finding a way to rewire our thinking to change our patterns of behaviour.</li></ol><p>On the face of it, the idea that power has a corrupting effect, suggests there is a problem. This is endorsed by the article’s remedies, which indicate that more considerate behaviour elicits improved performance and more positive results. And, if that is not enough, the prevalence of efforts to build employee engagement point to a widespread acknowledgement that all is not well.</p><p>If, however, the behaviour is innate, the remedy becomes more of a challenge, as the general failure of efforts to increase employee engagement substantiates. You need to ask yourself. “How do I address this and avoid the prevailing mistakes? Will the benefits justify the effort?” It’s your decision but one thing is for sure: if this behaviour is replicated at every level in your organisation, the potential benefits will be enormous, making the effort highly desirable. </p><p>The good news is that achieving those benefits does not have to be proportionally enormous. If the “corrupted” behaviour <em>is</em> hard-wired due to the need to survive in hierarchies, the best way to re-programme our thinking has to be to eliminate hierarchy in our organisations. Effectively this means shifting from an organisational structure to an organic structure. This makes the organisation more responsive, more adaptable and more change efficient. There are organisations that have done this and achieved – and sustained – significant success as a result. What's stopping you becoming one? </p></div>Developing Resilience - Feel in Controlhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/developing-resilience-feel-in-control2016-09-16T08:25:10.000Z2016-09-16T08:25:10.000ZRobin Hillshttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/RobinHills<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2217046?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><ul>
<li><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;" class="font-size-2">View the world as complex and challenging… but filled with <span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;" class="font-size-2">opportunity</span></span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;" class="font-size-2">Hold a positive perception about yourself</span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;" class="font-size-2">Defend yourself well</span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;" class="font-size-2">Be confident in your ability to meet any challenge with hope <span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;" class="font-size-2">and realistic optimism</span></span></li>
</ul>
<p><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;" class="font-size-2">Emotions that drain and stop you from feeling in control are <em>hopelessness</em>, <em>discomfort</em> and <em>disappointment</em>.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;" class="font-size-2"><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/cn7POBjhPcM?wmode=opaque" frameborder="0"></iframe></span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;" class="font-size-2">Emotions that facilitate you feeling in control are <em>esteem</em>, <em>contentment</em> and <em>optimism</em>.</span></p>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;" class="font-size-2"><strong>Be realistic</strong> about what you can and can’t do</span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;" class="font-size-2"><strong>Learn how to say ‘No’</strong> so that you don’t commit to too much</span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;" class="font-size-2">Challenge your own <strong>self-limiting beliefs</strong></span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;" class="font-size-2">Set <strong>small, short-term goals</strong> that you know you can achieve</span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;" class="font-size-2">Tell yourself you can do it and <strong>prove yourself to be right</strong></span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;" class="font-size-2"><strong>Communicate your intentions</strong> clearly to others, <strong>delegate</strong> and encourage their support</span></li>
</ul>
<p>Taken from <em><strong>"The Authority Guide to Emotional Resilience; Strategies to Manage Stress and Weather Storms in the Workplace"</strong></em> - published May 2016.</p>
<p> <a href="https://goo.gl/PR7Iln" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Available to order from Amazon</a></p>
</div>Developing Resilience - Create a Personal Visionhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/developing-resilience-create-a-personal-vision2016-09-02T09:03:48.000Z2016-09-02T09:03:48.000ZRobin Hillshttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/RobinHills<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2217335?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p>• Know what you believe in</p>
<p>• Have a clear vision of what you want to accomplish / achieve</p>
<p>• Approach adversity and stress with a sense of hope</p>
<p>• Let your belief and purpose carry you forward in life</p>
<div class="SP_Video_Container"><iframe width="479" height="511" style="border: 1px solid #CCC; border-width: 1px; margin-bottom: 5px; max-width: 100%;" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/E_hMSdLn4Lo" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0"></iframe></div>
<p>Emotions that drain and stop you from creating a personal vision are <em>frustration</em>, <em>inadequacy</em> and <em>anxiety</em>.</p>
<p>Emotions that facilitate creating a personal vision are <em>esteem</em>, <em>engagement</em> and <em>passion</em>.</p>
<p> • Set yourself <strong>clear goals and objectives</strong> focusing on what you want to achieve</p>
<p>• <strong>Establish a plan</strong> that will accomplish your goals</p>
<p>• Ensure that the plan is made up of <strong>small, achievable steps</strong></p>
<p>• <strong>Remain committed</strong>, even if events take you away from your plan for a short while</p>
<p>• Remind yourself of <strong>what you want to achieve</strong> and why</p>
<p>• Challenge your own <strong>self-limiting</strong> <b>beliefs</b></p>
<p>Taken from <em><strong>"The Authority Guide to Emotional Resilience; Strategies to Manage Stress and Weather Storms in the Workplace"</strong></em> - published May 2016.</p>
<p> <a rel="nofollow" href="https://goo.gl/PR7Iln" target="_blank">Available to order from Amazon</a></p>
</div>Mastering “The Paradox of Being Human”https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/mastering-the-paradox-of-being-human2016-06-16T12:47:59.000Z2016-06-16T12:47:59.000ZBay Jordanhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/BayJordan<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2216926?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p></p><p>The whole conundrum around the struggle between selfishness and selflessness, with its biological roots – or what Simon Sinek calls “The Paradox of Being Human” – gives us so much more to ponder than just the innate conflict between individual and organisational objectives for which I proposed a solution <a rel="nofollow" href="http://blog.zealise.com/zealise_blog/2016/06/the-paradox-of-being-human-and-its-implications-in-organisations-.html">last week</a>. The biology – summarised again in the table below – is also significant because it suggests happiness or satisfaction is situational and is therefore transient, which implies that “the pursuit of happiness” is a futile exercise: at best a fleeting goal. </p><p><a rel="nofollow" class="asset-img-link" href="http://blog.zealise.com/.a/6a00e54ee26aa1883301b8d1f86682970c-pi"><img class="asset asset-image at-xid-6a00e54ee26aa1883301b8d1f86682970c image-full img-responsive align-center" title="Biological Underpinnings of the Human Paradox" src="http://blog.zealise.com/.a/6a00e54ee26aa1883301b8d1f86682970c-800wi" alt="Biological Underpinnings of the Human Paradox" border="0"/></a></p><p>Nor am I alone in drawing this conclusion. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi states <em>“The foremost reason that happiness is so hard to achieve is that the universe was not designed with the comfort of human beings in mind. … If human goals and desires are taken as the starting point, there is irreconcilable disorder in the cosmos. … How we feel about ourselves, the joy we get from living, ultimately depend directly on how the mind filters and interprets everyday experiences. Whether we are happy depends on inner harmony, not on the controls we are able to exert over the great forces of the universe.</em>”</p><p>That is why Csikszentmihalyi prefers to talk about “flow” which he describes as “<em>The state in which people are so involved in an activity that nothing else seems to matter; the experience itself is so enjoyable that people will do it even at great cost, for the sheer sake of doing it.<strong>”</strong></em></p><p>This is particularly relevant when it comes to work. The fact is that, assuming a 40 hour working week, we generally spend around 35% of our waking time at work, which makes achieving “flow” more likely at work than anywhere else: something Csikszentmihalyi’s research confirms is the case in practice. Yet his research also shows that, despite this, people keep wishing for more leisure. He calls this “the paradox of work” and attributes it to two things:</p><ul><li>People not heeding the evidence of their senses based on their stereotype of what work is supposed to be like; and</li><li>The sense that the time invested in achieving other people’s goals is time subtracted from their own lives. </li></ul><p>While employee ownership actually offers the solution to both these problems, it more obviously provides the answer to the second than the first. The former is more clearly a perception issue and, I would posit, has its roots in the fact that, all too often, the interests of the organisation take priority. And, if that <em>is</em> what gives rise to the stereotypical perception of work, the only way to change it, is to recognise individual needs and collaborate more with the individual to address them.</p><p>The ‘Every Individual Matters’ Model offers you that capability. In addition to enabling employee ownership it recognises the reciprocity of need, with the organisational need providing the <strong><em>context </em></strong>for personal growth and the fulfilled individual providing the <strong><em>capability</em></strong> for organisational delivery. This provides the framework allows both parties to benefit from the synergistic outcomes of mutually enhanced performance. </p><p>Understanding the biology of the human paradox reveals that happiness, or employee engagement if you are looking at things from a totally organisational perspective, is:</p><ol><li>An attitude;</li><li>Personal; </li><li>In a constant state of flux, varying according to the situation or circumstances.</li></ol><p>Consequently there is no way of guaranteeing constancy. The best you can do is create an environment that irons out the wrinkles and ensures that any conflict is temporary and can be readily overcome. The ‘Every Individual Matters’ Model offers you that.</p></div>“The Paradox of Being Human” and Its Implications in Organisationshttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/the-paradox-of-being-human-and-its-implications-in-organisations2016-06-09T13:10:09.000Z2016-06-09T13:10:09.000ZBay Jordanhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/BayJordan<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2216937?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=392"></div><div><p>“The Paradox of Being Human” is how Simon Sinek describes life’s constant conflict between selfishness and selflessness: between “me” and “we.” We spend our lives vacillating between the two perspectives; zigging towards our own wants and zagging towards pleasing others. Yet our survival depends on our ability to juggle these opposite, apparently mutually-exclusive, demands. And always has.</p>
<p>So much so that, as I wrote <a rel="nofollow" href="http://blog.zealise.com/zealise_blog/2016/06/why-employee-engagement-efforts-arent-more-effective-.html">last week</a>, humans are biologically programmed for it. The table below illustrates the paradox and provides a succinct summary of this biological balancing.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1357814?profile=original" target="_self"><img src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1357814?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" width="750"></a></p>
<p>Yet, the fact it is biological is significant from a management and an HR perspective. It demands a fresh approach to organisational design and development because it indicates:</p>
<ul>
<li>Physical and psychological factors are inextricably linked. This necessitates a more holistic approach to addressing employee well-being.</li>
<li>Getting a balance is a continuous ongoing exercise and therefore ‘equilibrium’ is at best transient.</li>
<li>As a result, and because the over-production of any of the chemicals is unhealthy – for both the individual and the organisation – you need to be alert to, and prevent or monitor, situations that could cause it.</li>
</ul>
<p>Being a paradox can imply that there is unlikely to be any universal panacea. This is not good news, for most of us work in or for organisations. Thus, by definition, work invokes a situation where we need to balance our own interests with those of the organisation. Consequently it places us in a position where such conflict is practically permanent. The term "work-life balance" epitomizes this. The fault-line is, ultimately, the dichotomy between individual and organisation. As long as there is a difference in their respective aspirations, goals or objectives, the paradox applies and appears to have no viable solution.</p>
<p>But what if you were to eliminate the difference between individual and organisational goals?</p>
<p>Clearly this would seal the fault-line and lay the foundation for a more effective organisation through greater synergy, greater collaboration and greater satisfaction. Naturally, because the biological factors are situation responsive, you will still always be susceptible to the cracks reappearing, but efficient processes, procedures and systems ought to provide the ‘seismological’ warnings to prevent that happening.</p>
<p>So how do you achieve this?</p>
<p>The answer is surprisingly simple: <b>employee ownership</b>.</p>
<p>There is no better way to align individual and organisation than to give employees a “stake in the game.” And the ‘Every Individual Matters’ Model offers you the capability to create universal employee ownership, with every employee having a stake in the business and in its performance, at no cost to either employer or employee.</p>
<p><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.bayjordan.com/books/the-democracy-delusion/"> </a></p></div>Why Employee Engagement Efforts Aren’t More Effectivehttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/why-employee-engagement-efforts-aren-t-more-effective2016-06-02T11:59:31.000Z2016-06-02T11:59:31.000ZBay Jordanhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/BayJordan<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2216906?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p>In his book, “Leaders Eat Last,” Simon Sinek expounds on how the human species has been biologically programmed for survival. He describes the chemical stimulants that the body produces under different circumstances. He identifies 6 different chemical reactions and the situations in which they are produced. These are, briefly, as follows:</p><p><img class="mce-pagebreak align-center" alt=""/><a rel="nofollow" class="asset-img-link" href="http://blog.zealise.com/.a/6a00e54ee26aa1883301bb090af5af970d-pi"><img class="asset asset-image at-xid-6a00e54ee26aa1883301bb090af5af970d image-full img-responsive align-center" title="Biological Chemical Survival Mechanisms" src="http://blog.zealise.com/.a/6a00e54ee26aa1883301bb090af5af970d-800wi" alt="Biological Chemical Survival Mechanisms" border="0"/></a></p><p>However, having just <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.benzinga.com/pressreleases/16/05/p8022769/the-starr-conspiracy-intelligence-units-2016-employee-engagement-vendor#/ixzz49bUMmuvW" target="_blank" title="Expenditure of employee engagement">read</a> that expenditure on employee engagement exceeds $74 billion I cannot help wondering if this also explains why there has been so little improvement in employee engagement generally with levels of disengagement continuing to hover around the 70% mark.</p><p>Why would I think this?</p><p>Well, having long maintained that employee engagement is an umbrella concept that covers many issues, not least the fact that people are all different, I may well be prejudiced towards doing so. Nevertheless, I feel this provides other sound reasons for thinking this. </p><p>Firstly, engagement is an attitude or state of mind. This, inevitably, makes it entirely subjective. It also suggests that it is likely to be susceptible to circumstances, which would make engagement more mood-like, and – as a consequence – more likely to fluctuate and hence be a transient condition. The biological science that Sinek describes reinforces that logic and, by confirming that our responses are chemically induced, proves that susceptibility. All of which makes measuring employee engagement a moving target and a questionable exercise.</p><p>And, while logic may suggest otherwise, the consistent levels of employee engagement may bear this out and could simply be the result of attempting to homogenise the classification of people. Ultimately this inherently runs counter to the concept of recognising an employee’s individuality. When people want to feel that they “make a difference” and to be recognised and appreciated for their contribution this is counter-productive. It completely fails to recognise and address what Dan Pink identifies as the three drivers of motivation – autonomy, mastery and purpose – and does nothing to give employees any sense of that.</p><p>Consider Oxytocin for starters. It produces trust, and if you continue to run an environment in which command and control are the order of the day, where people are judged by the amount of time they spend at their desks or by their ability to achieve ever more “stretch” targets you will never build the trust you need to gain the engagement you are looking for.</p><p><span>Similarly, an environment in which there is a constant threat of losing one’s job, or the justification for most new technology or change initiatives, is how many jobs it will ‘save’, means that people will continue to be paranoid and produce the cortisol which is the ultimate cause of stress and ill-health. This is likely to be a significant factor in your sick days lost and/or absenteeism. In such an environment how can you ever expect your people to be engaged?</span></p><p>I am sure there are many other examples that would reinforce the point. The question you need to ask yourself, however, is how much do your employees trust you? Even if you have given them assurances that their jobs are secure, how do they know that you mean it and that their jobs will be not be in jeopardy the moment there is a deterioration in your trading conditions? If you haven't earned that trust you haven’t a snowball's chance in hell of ever securing greater employee engagement, no matter how much money you throw at the project. </p><p>Next time I will share more about how you can achieve your employee engagement objectives more effectively, but if you don’t want to wait you can always contact me directly.</p></div>