Leadership behaviors that nurture collaboration are the true drivers of change
sloanreview.mit.edu
sloanreview.mit.edu
>It’s a common misconception, both in businesses and in management articles and books, that a sense of purpose is what matters most when it comes to engaging employees. Many leaders concerned with attracting and retaining top talent believe that nothing motivates people as much as the larger good they might be doing or the chance to change the world. Accordingly, they extol the higher virtues of their companies’ missions and the meaning of the work they offer.
>But our work with more than 300 companies over the past 20 years, particularly our research using organizational network analysis (ONA) and our interviews with executives, reveals that purpose is only one contributing factor; the level and quality of interpersonal collaboration actually has the greatest impact on employee engagement.
Would I be wrong in saying that almost all people cannot do two of these let alone all at the same time?
Consider meeting planning, for example. How frequent meetings are, how long they are, how many people are involved, what the meeting venue is, and how the agenda and format is set.
There are all sorts of knobs to turn just in saying "what a meeting should look like" that will impact the flow of communication, and different teams in the same organization will tend to have different meeting styles, but at a high level, the planning has to include considerations around how to allow different teams to interact effectively, since those are the bottlenecks where the information tends to get siloed.
And then you can turn to hiring, assignments, training and promotions and there's a similar kind of thing, where the same person in a slightly different role may be hugely more or less effective, and defining the problem differently changes the kinds of assignments and skills needed. Who creates those definitions, and how? It's not necessarily the manager those employees report to that's creating them.
In fact, there's a whole cascade of effects that come from the macro situation that end up translating into differently defined roles: different legal and regulatory requirements, education and training standards, minimum wages, healthcare coverage, labor organization efforts, etc. The same people in a different country may be happier and more effective.
So, while the manager is the biggest factor in the equation, it's not all on them - it can't be. Some ways of doing business and types of company culture will work in some scenarios and others will not, and the marketplace has an evolutionary tendency to just make random permutations of management style until it finds one that doesn't die, even if it creates a toxic environment. In that light, "effective" management is a highly relative thing and can be encouraged or discouraged by the broader shape of the economy.
My first case of burnout came from a job where my biggest complaint about the CEO was that he didn't know the difference between urgency and panic. His "motivational speeches" were a gut punch every. single. time.
Here was a group of people smart enough to be three years too early to market but couldn't manage people to save their lives. Hindsight is 20/20 but I insisted this at the time: if we slowed down and worked on quality over quantity, we would have lasted longer. We had no competition.
Nobody was eating our lunch. We just couldn't say 'no' to anybody, and so we were constantly writing checks we couldn't cash. Everything was one rung down from Deathmarch, all of the time. I believe this is the company where I first learned the term "The Long Emergency".
Just... take a second. Calm down. Go outside for a couple minutes. Sleep on things. The clarity you gain will make up for a lot of your so-called lost time. It'll make you more effective, which is more important than being efficient.
If they had tried to get consensus it never would have happened.
Coincidentally this article doesn't actually provide any proof that collaboration increases innovation. Just that it improves "engagement".
That is the point the article makes. Example: I stayed 4 years in a company doing shitty work but where we had good laughs and a sense of community during shitty times.
- People > ideas > egos.
- Avoid too many personal pronouns "I" and "you," use "we" and "us."
- Beat on ideas, not people.
- Give some public credit now and then, feedback usually give it privately.
- Ask of something finished or unfinished: "How does this suck?" to get feedback.
- Organic, small meetings.
- "One page" approach... get people taking turns scribbling on a whiteboard, paper or electronic device.
- Be the party... invite people.
And focusing on transformation alone may not lead to either.
Business quotes are fun :D
Management isn't about managing everyone the same, but how they need to be managed for their unique personality and circumstances.
People are like unique plants in a garden and each has certain strengths/weaknesses and the best managers fill their gardens with complimentary plants that will grow together to achieve the most, fertilizing, pruning, and repotting along the way.
Heard this argument more than a few times from Googlers, although I doubt many feel that way these days.
> our interviews with executives, reveals that purpose is only one contributing factor; the level and quality of interpersonal collaboration actually has the greatest impact on employee engagement.2 In this article, we’ll explore why collaboration has that effect and which behaviors you can adopt and practic
Some excerpts:
> ... Google’s intense data collection and number crunching have led it to the same conclusions that good managers have always known. In the best teams, members listen to one another and show sensitivity to feelings and needs.
> ... Google, in other words, in its race to build the perfect team, has perhaps unintentionally demonstrated the usefulness of imperfection and done what Silicon Valley does best: figure out how to create psychological safety faster, better and in more productive ways.
> Project Aristotle is a reminder that when companies try to optimize everything, it’s sometimes easy to forget that success is often built on experiences — like emotional interactions and complicated conversations and discussions of who we want to be and how our teammates make us feel — that can’t really be optimized.
It wasn't the quality of the members, it was if there was just one "bad" member, or not. One bad member could sink a team no matter how good everyone else was.
They did find a sort of magic outlier where if the team member had an outstanding leader they could overcome the one bad member. However they believed that those folks were so rare and you're unlikely to find them that it's not something a team can strive to have.
Their measurements as for "bad" was largely based on their observations of teams meetings. Factors like simply being negative, insults (or close to insults, what we probabbly call toxicity today), disruptive, disrespectful, not being prepared (I found this one interesting as NOBODY seems prepared for a meeting anymore), and things like simply trying to change direction on any plans that were agreed to repeatedly.
> our research using organizational network analysis (ONA) and our interviews with executives
But, it's only an advertisement for Workday disguised as an article.
The business of a company is profit. Period. If you want to do "good", join a non-profit. Now, it's okay to say that good can happen as a result of profit-seeking. There's no need to be unethical about success. But you have to make it crystal clear to people from day one that the company exists to win.
https://www.businessroundtable.org/business-roundtable-redef...
The whole "Companies must maximize shareholder return" is a myth, because its a vague, unfalsifiable statement. More profit now could easily result in less profit, or no profit in the future.
This is absolutely not true. Only a narrow sect of Chicago-school types etc. really believes this.
The purpose of a company is whatever the powers that be deem it to be.
A company is made up of forces: Investors/Financiers, Executives, Employees, Customers and Suppliers.
Each of those entities can have tremendous influence over the company to the point wherein the might even control it.
For example, Unions wield incredibly power over the auto industry. It exists for them as much as it does for investors. Same for government.
Most good companies have de-facto communitarian intentions far beyond the product and act as responsible members of the community in most regards.
Corporate America today could probably lay off 1/3 of white collar workers without skipping a beat, but they don't - they're not as cold as you may imagine.
Most established companies are 'gears in a bigger picture' and are mostly operational, not innovative, by that I mean they just have to 'keep doing what they are doing' to survive. It's rare that they have new ideas or modalities, that's generally the advantage of new companies. New companies have to 'fight for profit' at the start, so as to find their way into the gears of the economy at which point they have a special leverage/power, but a kind of responsibility as well.
Just as a student's goal is technically to achieve the highest grades physically possible, that doesn't mean they won't benefit from skipping a few study sessions to mingle with other students and make valuable connections with other people.