We have lost our way as leaders in the workplace. As we make our way through the 21st century, it is apparent that the ability to effectively manage people is quietly diminishing. A recent study by LinkedIn shows that on average, college-educated Millennials will change jobs four times in the first ten years of their professional career. Do the math. That’s a job change every 2 ½ years. Seems like hardly enough time to get your “feet wet.” According to Forbes, the top reasons that people leave a job all involve the boss. That’s right! You as a leader may be the number one reason people leave.
An awful lot of factors have changed in the workplace and society in the last 40 to 50 years that may also induce people to take a new job. Certainly the ability to quickly and easily relocate to a more conducive geographic location which is more satisfactory to your personal preference is one reason. Relocating your family no longer seems to cause as much upheaval in the family dynamic as it once did. Another reason may be the drastic loss of the idea of a psychological contract between the employee and the employer. This used to represent the shared loyalty between the two parties. In other words, for a decent wage, some semblance of job security, and benefits, I commit myself to the company wholeheartedly and work hard for the best interests of the employer. However, in these days of mass layoffs, wage stagnation, and shrinking benefits, there is little to no loyalty to the company on the part of the employee. Another significant change that has taken place in the workforce in the last 40 to 50 years is the transition from the predominance of assembly line type work in this country to that of knowledge worker. In the realm of assembly line work, there was very little decision making on the part of the employee. No thought required. The young workers of today’s workforce will have to, and desire to, have quite a bit more decision-making power.
One attribute that we hear lots of discussion around in the workplace is the concept of employee engagement. Studies by organizations such as Gallup, indicate that when employees are engaged in the workplace, not only does productivity increase, but safety, absenteeism, quality, and turnover all improve as well. I believe Gallup. I have no doubt that employee engagement drives all of these benefits. So, the question that we should then ask is: How do I engage my employees? Certainly wages, benefits, etc. play a role in this. Yet, I believe as Frederick Herzberg the management theorist postulated, that these things are what are known as hygiene factors. They do not serve as positive motivators, but will cause dissatisfaction if they are not present, or not present in sufficient quantity.
What then, is the “secret sauce” to employee engagement? What can I, as a leader, possibly do to drive engagement? I believe the answer is simple. You have to care. That’s it. Simple, eh? You just have to care. Now, what do you have to care about? Two things. First and foremost, I care about you as a person. That’s right. I care about you as a fellow, living, breathing, human being that has hopes and aspirations. The second thing you must care about is the task. After all, the reason that we are employed is to get the job done. Let’s examine each of these things that I, as a manager, should care about.
Caring About
You Let’s see, it has been almost 85 years since a gentleman named Elton Mayo published his seminal book, The Human Problems of an Industrial Civilization. Mayo was a Harvard researcher that almost stumbled accidentally onto the most important revelation of his life’s work. Up to the point of the publication of his work in 1933, the prevailing management theory from the beginning of the twentieth century was that of Scientific Management. This was an idea put forth by a fellow named Frederick Taylor. Taylor was an engineer by trade, and had studied the most efficient means for a worker to accomplish a given task. He looked at everything from the discrete movements of the worker to the type of tooling required. Without a doubt, Taylor’s prescription improved productivity in many cases. Following the publication of his work, The Principles of Scientific Management in 1911, his practices became widely adopted. When reading his work, it becomes apparent that he is somewhat condescending toward the average manual laborer. Taylor did not believe that this class of worker maintained the type of intellect that could understand his principles. Yet, for the most part, his principles did work. To be fair, Taylor did consider the plight of the employee to a certain extent. His premise included the idea that with higher productivity, the company would require fewer workers. Thus, the laborers best suited for the task could be kept and the others let go. The workers that were left and trained in the scientific way to best perform their task, would then be paid a higher wage. That seems fair. So, what’s wrong with this picture? Something was missing here. This is where Mayo becomes important.
Elton Mayo was an Australian born psychologist that studied human behavior in the context of the workplace. By the late 1920s, he was a Harvard researcher and was contracted by the Western Electric company to study, and attempt to improve, productivity at the company’s Hawthorne Works in Illinois. The Hawthorne Works manufactured telephones for the company during this period. When Mayo and his team arrived in 1927, they performed productivity improvement experiments in the Relay Assembly Room at the plant. These included everything from changing the lighting conditions, to the number of breaks, to the duration of breaks, etc. What they observed was that it seemed that productivity improved no matter what change they made! How could this be? Mayo and his team ended up spending years at the Hawthorne Works and conducting thousands of interviews. What the research concluded was that psychological and social factors had a larger impact on productivity than any physical factor. It turns out that the women in the Relay Assembly Room were responding to just being observed rather than changes in lighting or break lengths. Someone was paying attention to them. Huh. The result was not only increased productivity, but a realization that the women worked better as a team unit rather than a group of individuals. And the women realized this ultimately too. Somebody cared about what they were doing. They were important.
Mayo’s revelations spawned what became known in management circles as The Human Relations Movement. The theory is that people want to be part of a team that supports both the goals and the development of the members. In essence, people are not tools or machines. This is the critical piece that Frederick Taylor was missing in Scientific Management theory. We are not human assets. We are not human capital. We are not human resources. We are breathing, thinking, feeling, caring individuals that have goals and aspirations in our lives. As leaders, we cannot allow ourselves to forget that.
Caring About the Task Much like military personnel, we all have a mission to complete at work. That mission is paramount in our work life. The tasks we are assigned in our day-to-day work are our mission. There should be focus, determination, drive, and at times, grit that push us forward to accomplish the mission. Yes, there are certainly times where the going gets rough as they say. The paradox with this in the modern work sphere is that there is very little in the way of loyalty anymore either flowing from the employee to the employer or vice versa. Despite that, we must be committed to the tasks set before us. Also in similar fashion to the military, you don’t always have to believe in the mission, but you must be committed to it. Soldiers that have seen combat will tell you that they are willing to lay their lives on the line, not necessarily because they believe in the mission, but because of their fellow soldiers. It may become a similar situation in the workplace. You may strive to complete the task so that you don’t let your team down. That’s ok. Whatever the reason, completing the mission is important.
For students of management science, one of the interesting concepts that has been published is that of the Blake-Mouton Managerial Grid. This grid has a vertical and horizontal axis. One of the axes is labeled “Concern for the Task” and the other is labeled “Concern for People.” And of course, Blake and Mouton espouse that the most effective leaders are those that score high on both axes. I certainly agree with this. Yet, to become that type of manager is difficult and for most of us, probably requires practice. It seems most managers seem to tilt heavily on one axis or the other.
Conclusion
This is not rocket science. Elton Mayo taught us long ago that it really is all about being human, respected, and part of a team. In short, as a leader, you have to care. You have to care both about the individual as a human being, and about the task. However, a note of caution is in order here. One thing that we humans are very good at is being able to ferret out insincerity. The lesson is that you either sincerely care, or you don’t. But, don’t fake it. More damage will be done by pretending to care about the individual, than if you never attempted to demonstrate a caring attitude. Success in any organization is driven by the people that work there. So, as a leader, your mission is to remember that these are individual human beings that are all different and therefore should be treated as such.
