The Origins of Unengaged Employees - II

In Part 1 of this post - all those weeks ago - I suggested that we should be vision testing.

Why aren't we Vision Testing? Why do we continue to seek out specialists who couldn't care less about the "why" of the business? Wouldn't you like to know, when someone comes in for a job, that they're interested in the job because of the "why" the company is doing "what" it's doing?

But we don't do that.

Instead, we hire people because they fulfill some qualifications and then we're forced to spend millions of dollars on misguided initiatives to get them engaged.

Consider the following story:

The famous New York diamond dealer Harry Winston heard about a wealthy Dutch merchant who was looking for a certain kind of diamond to add to his collection. Winston called the merchant, told him that he thought he had the perfect stone and invited the collector to come to New York to examine it.

The collector flew to New York and Winston assigned a salesman to meet him and show him the diamond. When the salesman presented the diamond to the merchant he described the expensive stone by pointing out all its fine technical features. The merchant listened and praised the stone but turned away and said, "It's a wonderful stone but not exactly what I want."

Winston, who had been watching the presentation from a distance, stopped the merchant going out the door and asked, "Do you mind if I show you the diamond once more?" The merchant agreed and Winston presented the stone, Winston spoke spontaneously about his own genuine admiration of the diamond and what a rare thing of beauty it was. Abruptly, the customer changed his mind and bought the diamond.

While he was waiting for the diamond to be packaged and brought to him, the merchant turned to Winston and asked, "Why did I buy it from you when I had no difficulty saying no to your salesman?"

Winston replied, "That salesman is one of the best men in the business and he knows more about diamonds than I do. I pay him a good salary for what he knows. But I would gladly pay him twice as much if I could put into him something that I have and he lacks. You see, he knows diamonds, but I love them."

Simple, huh? It isn't selling or work if you love what you're doing. But, it isn't enough just to hire people whose desires match that of the organization. They have to be allowed to do what they love - that is of utmost importance. You can't hire someone and then continuously put barriers between them and what they love doing.

Yet we do. The average organization today has so many different departments and reporting structures - I saw an org chart the other day that was for just one department that had to be reduced to 23% just to fit it on my screen - ONE DEPARTMENT. No person on the org chart, and it was 6 layers deep, had more than 10 people reporting to them.

The average manager today has fewer people reporting to them than a 5th grade teacher has students in their class. What's wrong with this picture? Think about that: the typical manager is responsible for fewer adults than a teacher is for children. Yikes!

Yet we need organizational charts because that is the only way to ensure that we can keep a watchful eye on each of the members of the "team".

Well - it really comes down to something very simple: It's not business, it's personal.

Fouroboros wrote about it here:

People far wiser have said it far better..

...but here's how basic it really is:

1. Lose the bullcrap that says "it's not personal, it's business." If you're breathing, it is personal. Period. Disallowing that truth empties offices and balance sheets and fills SEC judiciary dockets and customer service call queues.

I wrote about it here:

It's nothing personal folks

That was the first slide of a Power Point presentation I saw someone putting together on the airplane the other day, seriously.

"It's nothing personal folks..."

I wasn't trying to eavesdrop or pry or anything, but I couldn't help glancing over a couple of times...

Anyway, from what I could tell, the presentation was at least 30-40 slides with lots of charts and graphs and TONS of text on each slide... urgh, that is not a meeting that I would like to go to... but I digress....

"It's nothing personal folks..."

That is just wrong on so many levels.

First: Okay, then why are we here?

Second: Yeah, actually, it is personal.

Third: So, you don't care about me... then why should I care about you, this presentation or this company?

Well, I've got a new mantra - and I suggest that you adopt it as well:

It's not business, it's personal.

If you think I'm wrong consider the following:

• If you've ever lost sleep about something going on at work, it's personal.
  
• If you've ever argued with someone at work (or wanted to) about the way something should be done, it's personal.
  
• If you've ever come home and bitched about work, it's personal.
  
• If you've ever hit the snooze button in the morning - instead of rushing out of bed, it's personal (in the bad sense).
  
• If you've ever felt like something you have been asked to do is "stupid" or "wrong" or "boring", it's personal...
  

It's not business, it's personal.

And the quickest way to ensure that you'll be forced to spend time and money trying to get employees engaged is denying this very basic fact.

People don't leave their ambition, needs, desires, and hopes at home when they come to work. Since the beginning of time people have asked the same questions:

Who am I?
Why am I here?
What can I become?

Can each of your employees answer that question and do those answers match your customers goals in life?

Every organization is in the people business. Plain and Simple. Customers, Employees - same thing. The questions aren't "What can I sell to them?" or "How can I make them more productive?" But rather, "What do they want to do?" and "What do they want to become?" and "How can I help them get there?"

So, what business are you in? How are you helping people become the better versions of themselves that each of us aspire to be?

Comments

[Ted Bozarth]

Jon, good as always. You inspired me to finally write a post that I have been meaning to do for awhile. It deals with a related but different issue of how resources are allocated within organizations -- call it a more efficient internal labor market to enable change. Keep up the good thoughts!

[Michele Miller]

Terrific post, Jon. I have a question that I regularly ask my clients and seminar participants: Do you give your employees the freedom to try... FAIL... and hopefully succeed? 9 times out of 10 I get the response of open-mouthed, glassy-eyed stares. Give employees that kind of TRUST? Engagement to most employers means servitude in a robotic, not organic sense.

[Jon Strande]

Ted - thank you!

Michele, WOW, what a great question! Huh, I bet the 1 out of 10 that says yes have some great stories... hmmm... great fodder for a post? Can you share some of the great answers you've gotten?

[Andreas]

What a great great post. And imagine that people lose their jobs after years of "service" and the boss is telling them - "don't take this personal, but we had a look at your role and we decided that it is the best for all of us blablabla." It happens all the time - and companies still wonder why employees are not engaged, customers are not loyal which is related), and employees "sabotage" companies from time to time??

Great post - really. Keep it up.

[David]

Great post. Likely it is the same 'mantra' of "It's business not personal' that will cause most companies to NOT allow employees to Blog.