Overall what does the annual performance appraisal do? It certainly doesn’t create and build trust! What it does is enact fear and creates mistrust. How could trust possibly be created through a process wherein people are judged, let alone for outcomes over which they haven’t full control?  How could trust be created by a process where people are given credit or blame for effects over which they know (at some level) they have little influence?

Interactions Not Actions

Organizations are social systems, human activity systems that function through relationships—cooperative and collaborative relationships—among people. As explained in a previous post, performance is an emergent property of a system; it is a function of the interaction of the many constituent components of the system as well as the components themselves.  Thus in an interdependent world the interaction among members either increases or diminishes the performance.

Yet some might argue that if “is a team player” (or something similar) is among the criteria in the appraisal then this would promote cooperation and teamwork.  We mustn’t forget that an individual’s performance can’t be known because it is the result of the interaction of many factors—the system itself, the materials provided, the management provided, the equipment provided etc. Adding a measure such as ‘is a team player’ doesn’t make the unknowable known and it doesn’t enable control of what is desired.  A reasonable person would agree that because organizations are human activity systems that depend on cooperation and collaboration among its members, performance is neither summative nor reductive—it is emergent.  Thus it is not the criteria of appraisal that affords synergy it is the organization’s design and system of management.

An organization’s performance is not the linear sum of each person’s performance. That is to say, performance of the organization emerges from the interaction of many factors—ideally realizing a degree of synergy—among people.  Hence for an organization to function effectively and efficiently trust is essential. In light of this, to advocate for the annual review of employees’ performance that leverages fear and creates mistrust is simply wrongheaded, if not foolish. If organizational performance depends on interactions (i.e. relationships), why then do we put so much attention on measuring individual action?

In far too many organizations people are managed as if independent of each other and everything else.  In far too many organizations control of others is sought through metrics coupled to the assumption that each is seeking to gain as much as he/she can.  In far too many organizations fear is the go-to-lever for management.  Why else would carrot-and-stick methods be so popular?  When one’s ranking in the annual review depends on how one compares to others, then helping others is incompatible with one getting ahead and realizing a higher ranking.

Rather than learning and improvement, what the annual performance appraisal promotes are efforts to do whatever you can to look good. The impact of one’s actions on others is of little concern since ‘me’ looking good is ‘my’ primary concern—that’s what’s measured. Results matter and what I do for ‘me’ to get those results is what matters—in the end it’s about ‘me’ winning.  The effect is the relationships among people are anything but helping and productive. Further what’s beneficial to the wholesomeness of the system is secondary at best. While it may appear those in management are controlling things through metrics, what they are really getting is mistrust dressed up in compliance.  And compliance is not an antecedent of creativity, so why promote it!

Moreover the annual performance appraisal fosters the reinforcing attitude that you are on your own, which is an easy attitude to embrace since the system of economics—the economic context within which we conduct business—advances a self-interest focus as well.

Meaning Not Ends

Furthermore the relationship people have with their work is central to how they perform their work. If the work is seen merely as a means to money then the work one does has no meaning apart from what one materially gains from the activity. Therefore work is stripped of inherent meaning since it is just a means to material gain.  Also when the value of work equates to the amount of material gain it brings or to an abstract measure—when ends supplant means—the quality of people’s work, and that of the organization, diminishes.

To manage an organization as if everything is linear and summative is synonymous to managing to make the organization dysfunctional and its performance suboptimal.  Obviously creating an environment wherein self-interested behavior is encouraged—wherein either/or thinking reigns supreme and both reductionism and individualism are embraced—is antithetical to realizing a quality producing wholesome system.  Managing in a way that turns interaction into transaction reflects a superficial understanding of what it means to lead.

So why is it so widely practiced? Where is it proven that superficiality builds trust, the essential context for productive relationships?  Why does management continue with practices that diminish the likelihood of realizing meaningful work and synergy among people? Why does management continue with a practice that reduces risk taking, limits learning and sub-optimizes organizational performance? Is it possible that those in authority fear that without this force-based tool they would lose (perception of) control and not be able to get anyone to do as they wish?

We are left only to wonder, have those in management the courage for leadership?

Realizing joy in work comes largely from having the freedom to exercise one’s capabilities, which is an antecedent to learning. Why is this important?  The organization, especially in the post-industrial knowledge-based economy the capability of the organization rests no so much on capital and machine but on people (formerly known as labor).  If people aren’t the focus of development then eventually the business enterprise will run out of capability.

Moreover, we as human beings have an inherent desire and need to learn; it is what helps make our work interesting and joyful. In an organization the very process of work presents opportunities for learning, but many times management practice impinges upon learning.  As Ori claims “I believe that it is much more dangerous not to report mistakes than it is to make mistakes in the first place. It’s natural that we make mistakes.”  Unfortunately in many organizations people are punished for making mistakes, which tends to keep mistakes hidden.  The annual performance review—where accountability for results is formally exacted—is the usual mechanism for doling out punishment-rewards.  The opportunity to learn is denied.

Mistakes are not the only cause for learning; the work itself presents this opportunity.  This is not on-the-job training but rather through-the-work learning.  This learning is a result of the P-D-S-A cycle of continuous improvement.  Though mistakes present opportunities to learn, they are not the only impetus for learning.  This cycle, when made integral to the very process of work, makes reflective and critical thinking necessary skills for everyone.

Why is this important?  The organization, especially in the post-industrial knowledge-based economy the capability of the organization rests no so much on capital and machine but on people (formerly known as labor).  If people aren’t the focus of development then eventually the business enterprise will run out of capability.  For the traditional business minded investing in things one owns (e.g. equipment and facility) is not a problem, but investing is something not owned or that doesn’t return a profit in the next quarter such as the development of peoples’ potential is a real problem.

Ori believes “that you really need to ask yourself what you can get and what you can’t get from your employees, and then focus on what you can get from them. If you focus on what you can get, you can maximize their contribution. You can also encourage them to improve, but you need to know the limits and abilities of every one.”  There is a difference between challenging and supporting people to realize their potential and expecting people to do things they may not be capable of doing.  The former is inspiring and the latter de-spiriting.

The organization’s capability to do something emerges from the interplay of peoples’ abilities and the space/resources/support provided by the organization (a.k.a. the organization’s system). The space/resources/support include the organizing design, management practices and the supporting structures, which includes culture.  It is management’s responsibility to ensure the productive interplay of people and the system. But it is not simply a matter of those in management providing these they too must continually work toward improving the quality of the experience they themselves provide.

Those in authority must provide the system wherein people can exercise and synergize their capabilities in a meaningful way.  To this end, those in authority actively listening to what it means to others and their work is critical to developing an appreciation for the interdependent nature of everyone’s work.  It provides first hand knowledge of the organization as a system.  After all managing the system, ensuring the continual development of capability, is a defining measure of the quality of management (a.k.a. leadership)!

1. Big company bureaucracy—no one likes rules that make no sense
2. Failing to find a project for the ‘talent’ that ignites their passion—top talent isn’t driven by money and power, but by the opportunity to be part of something huge, that will change the world, and for which they are really passionate
3. Poor annual performance reviews—annual performance reviews are not long term focused and thus are not performed effectively
4. No discussion around career development—most bosses never engage with their employees about where they want to go in their careers—even the top talent
5. Shifting whims/strategic priorities—top talent hates to be jerked around
6. Lack of accountability and/or telling them how to do their jobs—top talent demands accountability from others and doesn’t mind being held accountable for their projects
7. Top talent likes other top talent—if you want to keep your best people, make sure they’re surrounded by other great people
8. The missing vision thing—what is the vision you want this talented person to fulfill
9. Lack of open-mindedness—the best people want to share their ideas and have them listened to

10. Who’s the boss—if a few people have recently quit at your company who report to the same boss, it’s likely not a coincidence

Clearly the above are among the many things within organizations that are annoying, frustrating and counterproductive.  But why is it assumed only top talented employees would find these as such?  It is highly likely that these would be just as annoying, frustrating and counterproductive to others in the organization—diminishing the organization’s performance.

Doesn’t it make you wonder, why the concern is only for the best talent? Don’t all employees contribute to the organization’s products/services? Wouldn’t making anyone’s work difficult or senseless cause him/her to checkout—physically or psychologically from his/her work? After all, both Herzberg’s and Maslow’s theories of motivation apply to all people not just those who someone in authority labels as top talent.

I imagine some would counter saying, hey some people are more talented than others and management has to pay attention to the future stars, they are the future of the organization! Does not the performance of the organization emerge from the system!  What is the responsibility of management: to further the careers of those they believe most talented (and ignore that of the others) or to develop and enhance the capability of the organization (i.e. facilitating the retention and improvement of all employees)?  Wouldn’t doing the latter have a greater impact on the organization’s viability than the former? Why hire people who aren’t valuable to the organization? Wouldn’t an organization wherein all employees are supported in meeting their potential outperform another in which only a chosen few are doing so?  What better way to surround the best with the best than by helping everyone realize his/her potential!

Relating to some employees as valuable people and to all others as interchangeable, disposable and replaceable skill sets will not afford the synergy required for the emergence of everyone’s potential, and in turn the organization’s competitive advantage and viability. It is not the way to effectively leading the bottom from the top.  Why?  Because the organization is comprised of relationships and it is the productivity of these relationships that pre-figures the emergence of synergy, capability and thus performance of the organization.

Managers have to stop thinking about the members of the organization in a dualistic way and cease managing in a mechanistic and reductionist way.  If the organization is to maximally perform then those in authority must learn to understand and manage the organization as a living system. Doing otherwise, those in authority do a great disservice not only to the people but also to the viability of the organization. By minimizing synergy—essentially sucking life out of the organization—the potential that lies within will not actualize.

Canalize Don’t Control

The one thing that has the potential to meaningfully touch everyone and that provides guidance for all decisions and actions is vision.  Hence the gravity of vision can’t be overstated.

But contrary to what many believe, vision is not a futuristic statement nor is it an advertising slogan for display in the company’s lobby or the strategic mission of the enterprise.  Vision flows from the system of beliefs and values held in our (collective) mind. Being an attractor, it canalizes human energy in a way that either supports or opposes the emergence of creativity and organizational viability.

That is, vision pre-figures the experiences of those working in and served by the organization.  A vivifying vision can provide guidance for and completeness to the organizing structure, affording a sense of order and meaning to the work of the enterprise.

Why is meaning so critical?  Meaning is the basis of (intrinsic) motivation that in turn leads each employee to maintain commitment to the organization’s work.  Simply, if you want to retain people provide them something meaningful to do!

Thus a vivifying vision awakens and affords the flow of meaning throughout the organization and provides the context for the self-reinforcing interplay and exchanges among people affording joy in work. Most find it a pure joy to do meaningful things—don’t you?  If employees realized joy through the organization’s work, then few would abhor being at work!

Lead by Facilitating

To hire a person is a decision about the future not the past! Leaders don’t hire people for what they’ve done but for what they have the potential to do. Therefore, the way of organizing and managing must enable potential.  Unfortunately, many organizations are limiting and thus limited, not in people’s potential, but in what those in authority cause to be probable. Leading effectively enables, it doesn’t disable, potential. Accordingly, organizing and managing guided by a vivifying vision can provide employees the physical and psychological space to actualize their potential.

Leaders who make potential probable are those who lead from their personhood not their position.  Yet most talk of leadership in the context of position or possession, which is mere euphemism for the boss, the one-in-charge.  Who among us really likes to be bossed around!

As Eric Jackson noted, “people want to share their ideas and have them listened to.”  That is to say people need to be listened to because it communicates that they matter to the one who is listening.  In other words, listening communicates that you care; and caring is necessary for facilitating quality. Caring about (and for) the development of others is the way to sustaining organizational viability.

Commit to Quality

A large part of keeping talented people in the organization rests on keeping people in the organization talented.  You cannot have quality people without caring about the people you have.  Caring precedes quality!

Quality is the expression of the human spirit that lies within each of us; as such it is the manifestation of human potential. Why else is the allure of quality universal! Quality captures our attention because it resonates within everyone; it is the expression of our potential as human beings. Unfortunately, the common and widespread annual performance review is merely a means of exercising control over and objectifying others: It is the antithesis of a process for improvement of (and the experience of) quality.

However it need not be this way!  If the performance review process was at base a process for coaching and learning—and not a process for rating, ranking, exacting accountability and justifying reward/punishment—then it could be a means of guiding the development of people’s potential toward enhancing organizational capability.  So to have talented employees, replace the process of rating, ranking and accountability for results with leadership.

This requires managers who care about the development of those working in the organization. It requires those in authority to add value through their very being—not solely through their position—and who value the potential that lies within everyone. While any one can deliver results by any means, it is only the courageous that will do so with a focus on quality and the betterment of every employee.

Clive Boddy (Nottingham Business School, Nottingham Trent University) in an article in the Journal of Business Ethics defines the corporate psychopath as executives/business leaders “who have no conscience or empathy and who do not care for anyone other than themselves.”  As Boddy explains these type of people can be callous in their disregard for the needs of others in pursuit of their interests and their “own self-enrichment and self-aggrandizement.”

A Good Fit

How is it that such people can realize positions in the upper echelon of corporations? To answer this all we need to do is understand what the economic system and business culture find most important. In an economic system that advances the primacy of material self-interest and a results oriented culture, getting results irrespective of means is what counts!

Clearly the corporate world would be quite enticing to the socially friendly psychopath.  After all, it can be just as lucrative as the world of crime without offering a high probability of prosecution for crimes committed against humanity.  But not only is a world of self-interest with short-term thinking desirable to the psychopath, many of the traits of these people—calculating, charismatic, manipulative, materially driven, ruthless, unemotional—are embraced by a material self-interest oriented corporate world.

Thus charismatic people who unabashedly focus on driving for results will do very well in such a world—a world where nice guys finish last.  Accordingly, with the maximization of short-term profit being most important people who can drive and deliver results will be deemed ‘leader material’ and accordingly developed by their organization for positions of increasing responsibility.

A Matter of Degree

Seemingly what the above is describing are quite self-interested people and possibly greedy characters.  But is greed different than self-interest?  Well of course they are different, but they are also foundationally related.

Greed is essentially unfettered self-interested behavior; it is self-interest on steroids. With self-interested behavior you could have people seeking advantage over others for self-benefit and with greed you could have people causing harm to others for self-benefit.  That is to say, people acting out of self-interest can lead to unfairness and people acting out of greed will often lead to fraud.

Greed as a behavioral trait is sought and developed.  It is because of greed that the drive for getting and having goes forever unsatisfied ensuring a consuming and acquisitive society.  Adam Smith argued the importance of the pursuit of material self-interest to the industriousness of the labor class and in turn to the wealth of a nation.  As he assumed (in The Wealth of Nations) “every man…is much more deeply interested in whatever immediately concerns himself than in what concerns any other” thus implying that the propensity for satisfying one’s self-interest is most significant in influencing profit maximizing behavior.  In a recent paper appearing in The Academy of Management Annals, titled On Greed, authors Long Wang and J. Keith Murnighan claim “the basic logic of capitalism…suggests that organizations and their members should do what they can to maximize their economic interest.”

People have taken for granted, without questioning, the notion that we are at base selfish beings.  Accordingly our societal culture embraces the notion that people are at base driven to maximize their material self-interest—what’s in it for me is not just cliché it reflects a general attitude, the American zeitgeist.  This unquestioned belief has been forged by the widespread application of the self-interest precept of our economic system, infiltrating life in society in so many aspects—business, government and education.

Accordingly rigging the system in service to one’s self-interest is just the way we’ve designed things to work—special interest rules the day.   Why else are there so many elected officials who become millionaires during their term in office in what should be service to society?  Why else are there lobbyists (many of whom served on Capital Hill prior to becoming a lobbyist) working to establish quid pro quo relationships with government officials? Why is it that those who are able to offer sizable amounts of money to elected officials (our public servants) given far greater access, credibility and opportunity?  Seemingly every thing is an economic exchange through which each is seeking to better his/her position materially.

According to Smith “it is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from the regard to their own interest.”  Substitute senator, congressmen and president and it no doubt applies. It is therefore no surprise that special interests dictate the discourse and much of public policy.

Insatiability of Material Gain

Moreover according to Wang and Murnighan “neoclassical economics’ focus on self-interest almost seems to glorify greed” (p 287).  British philosopher David Hume, a close friend of Adam Smith, believed greed to be both vice and virtue.  In regard to the latter Hume claimed it motives people and thus can be a positive force in commerce.  Smith clearly agreed since his theory of economics (of societal wealth creation) rested upon each individual striving to maximize his/her material self-interest.

As Wang and Murnighan noted “the negative social consequences of greed focus primarily on its uneven distribution of resources” and the growing gap in income inequality in the U.S. is a case in point.  In the period between the 1950’s and 1960’s CEO compensation was about 25 times that of the average worker.  Today it is 340 times that of the average worker!  As a result of the income trend lines going in quite different directions, some argue that we have two economies.

It would appear that the seed of material self-interest has grown into sequoia-sized greed.  It seems clear that everything for me and nothing for others—though a popular path for those seeking greater personal wealth—is a recipe for destruction and the eventual depletion of societal wealth.  It surely is not the way to progress, if by progress we mean the likelihood is good that our future will be better than the present.

As Lester Thurow noted in his 1996 book The Future of Capitalism, in capitalism “there is simply no social must.”  Moreover, capitalism honors competition, and winning in a limited resource competitive environment is auto-correlated.  In other words the probability of winning is greater for those who have previously won—winning begets winning—and the probability of non-winners winning increasingly diminishes.   As the gap between winners and losers increases moving from losing to winning gets more and more difficult.  Correspondingly, since a self-interest seeking materialist can never have enough, trickle-down doesn’t happen—the evidence of this is quite strong.

How does material self-interest become greed?  The pursuit of material gain has no natural satiation point, thus unless the individual is morally awake the desire for having more is unfettered and thus escalates without bound.  Moreover with egoic self-interest bounded by one’s own skin, in pursuing more and more a concern for one’s impact on others is essentially nonexistent. The concern for ‘me’ and ‘mine’ is all consuming.  The 2008 financial crisis is a case in point of the consequences of greed. In fact, Clive Boddy claims corporate psychopaths theory as an explanation of the cause of the global financial crisis.

Smith believed that human beings weren’t capable of self-control and thus people require external forces to keep them within the boundaries of fair play in their economic endeavors.  Smith wasn’t advocating regulation but enforceable laws.

Unfortunately human behavior can’t be legislated, especially greedy behavior.  Unregulated material self-interested behavior transitions readily into fraudulent behavior.  What’s better for society, to reign in such behavior before the fact or to seek retribution for the behavior after the fact?  Is it better to prevent theft or to enforce the law (i.e. prosecute) against theft?  [It seems, at least thus far, we’ve done neither in regards to the actions of Wall Street.]

The issue is not whether greed is part of human nature, but whether greed is an unavoidable part.  We could say the same for morality.  Both are in our potential.  However we are not destined to be moral actors any more than we are destined to be greedy.  Just as a sense of morality must be developed, so too must greediness.   In regards to the latter, our current system of economics is doing this quite well.

As with most dimensions of human development, we are guided and facilitated in our development by the societal context—the zeitgeist—within which we are raised.  In the U.S. the societal context facilitates the belief that we each are self-interest maximizing beings—self-interested behavior is expected, it is our ethos.  It is no wonder that many of our corporate executives are far more calculating, far less empathetic and ruthlessly political/manipulative; there appears to be no concern or regard for the impact of their self-serving actions on others.  [We are even seeing this in our elected officials.]

Just because the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court concluded that corporations are people and thus it is legal for corporations to have an opaque and dominant voice in the election of our representatives doesn’t mean that corporate executives should act on this.  Those who are morally developed—whose sense of self doesn’t stop at their own skin—and who are not solely guided by the legality of an action understand that can doesn’t imply should.

What if we believed we are not just self-interest maximizing beings? What if we weren’t so consumed by (i.e. addicted to) having more and more as a way of being and establishing our personal identity? What if having a concern for ‘We’ is just as important as a concern for ‘me’? What if we are deeply connected?  [As noted by Amitai Etzioni “the I’s need We to be” (The Moral Dimension)]. What if our sense of self didn’t stop at our skin, but included all of humankind?

Acknowledging our ‘I-We’ nature puts us in touch with the individual and collective aspects of being human and in turn to the simultaneous responsibility we have to each other.  Accordingly life in society is not simply a collection of independent individuals seeking advantage over others as each strives to have it all for ‘Me’. We are not simply instrumental to each other’s wants.

If we wish those who lead—corporations and government—not to be so self-serving then we must change how we as a society not only choose but also shape them.  This requires us to change what we believe about ourselves, and in turn to change the system of economics, and correspondingly the conduct of business, that has infiltrated so much of life in society.  After all we do shape the reality we experience.

Compounding the situation is the lack of journalists who will (immediately) bring to light falsehood—not correcting an inaccuracy is support of its accuracy.  The longer a falsehood goes unchallenged the more it is assumed to be true. If journalists are unwilling to uphold their responsibility to ensure that truth, decency and fairness prevail then they must step out of the ring.

Making false claims about a product/service in advertising is not tolerated—it is called truth in advertising, and we expect it.   Yet in political advertising, where it can destroy the very fabric of society, it is allowed.  According to the Federal Trade Commission to protect consumers advertising should be truthful, non-deceptive, fair and supported by credible evidence.  In political advertising are we not consumers of information?  Where is the FTC when you need them?

If a person will lie to get into office then he/she will do the same once in office—it is the way he/she rolls.  Accordingly, if a person can’t be trusted to tell the truth then how can a discerning public in good conscience elect him/her to the highest office in government to represent them in the world and to lead the nation?

Journalist failing to represent a free and independent press and people failing to demand credible support for claims and assertions reflects an unthinking, incurious and gullible citizenry.  It is a citizenry that is easily deceived by manipulative and deceptive people who play on peoples’ hopes and fears.   A citizenry that is sorely misinformed.

A recent case in point is the frequently communicated idea that the U.S. is over regulated and thus unfriendly (and an unwelcoming) place in which to do business.  The unfounded solution that is advanced is that to improve the economic climate in the U.S. we need to eliminate regulations and even agencies designed to ensure fairness and safety.  Unfortunately the facts don’t support this: Yet such facts don’t get in the way of falsehood becoming belief.

That people actually swallow the stories they are told is quite troubling!  Why?  Because a society of the people, for the people and by the people—our democracy—requires a discerning informed public who can effectively determine who is best qualified to lead.

Having an effective leader requires that that elected person actually embody the essence of leadership.  Leadership is not the expression of self-interest but of selflessness (the concern is always for the collective We of society) and the enactment of the highest of values–truthfulness and trustworthiness being noteworthy manifestations—in all one’s actions.

With the destructive combination of demagogues in pursuit of political office, the lack of both responsible journalists and a critical thinking citizenry, then a free and democratic society cannot possibly be sustained.  It is time that we the people demand more from both those seeking to inform and to lead us as well as from ourselves!

“So I went in front of 35 people who were now my direct reports to talk to them about my vision, and most of them were older than me. I remember wondering whether they were going to take orders from this young whippersnapper. And a couple of them had pretty much determined that there was no way I was going to be able to pull this job off, and they said that to me.”

It is no surprise that the managers didn’t embrace their new leader from the start.  Although her young age was an obstacle, what made it even more so was the fact that she went before them to talk to them about her vision—underscore her.

Showing others that you are the boss is not the way to building a productive collaborative relationship, though on the surface it may get you compliant behavior. When faced with the challenge of seeking the support of others the first step is to demonstrate/show your willingness to listen to and possibly even follow those you wish to influence and lead.   Communicating your trust in them is paramount.

As Kathleen came to realize during her first year “you’ve got to respect people. You’ve got to listen. You have to be willing to get input from everybody.” Rachel Ashwell, founder of Shabby Chic, in a previous posting  echoed the importance of respecting people when describing her approach, “I’m going to treat you as a human being” thus recognizing the need for relatedness, respect and trust…so “when having a conversation, you’re really there and you’re interested and you’re interesting.”

Recall a principle expressed by Stephen Covey, “seek first to understand then to be understood.”  Why is this so critical?  To be a leader you must be the one to take the first step toward cooperation by showing your willingness to trust the other.  The essence of leadership rests on the intra-personal and inter-personal, not the positional.  Accordingly, trustworthiness and trust are the bedrock of leadership and productive relationships.

Providing leadership is not so much about being the one in-charge—of exercising positional authority over others—but rather being the one who knows how to engage the power of others.

Engaging others means accessing their will not employing incentives.  It is about helping people find meaning in the work not reducing the work to an economic transaction.  In a May 2006 Leadership Excellence article Francis Hesselbein noted  “listening is one of the most effective ways of learning what others value” and as such “it is part of the art of leadership.”

One way that Kathleen does this is by “asking people at every level of the organization for their input.”  Caring about what other’s think communicates that you actually have confidence in their ability to think and are willing to take action in response to their input.  In so doing, you facilitate them toward making a contribution in a meaningful way, and motivation follows meaning.

While the unemployment rate is far less than heart warming, what is happening to many who still have a job is almost as dehumanizing.  According to the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index^Ò from 2008 through 2011 the work environment has been getting worse year-after-year.

What this means is that there is a 4-year declining trend in job satisfaction, treatment by supervisors, openness and trust in the workplace and the ability to use one’s strengths at work.  As noted in a Knowledge@Wharton article “with millions of people looking for employment, the workplace these days is an increasingly unhealthy environment for those who still have, and are trying to keep, their jobs.”

A Crime Against Humanity

Why is this happening? As previously noted the intention of many corporate executives is to squeeze labor more and more in order to realize greater and greater profit.  To quote Deming, “beat horses and they will run faster—for awhile.”  In a stagnant economy with a high unemployment rate most people have little recourse so they swallow what they are given, though grudgingly.  They are happy to have a job but not happy with the job they have!

Treating people as fungible objects in the economic equation for the purpose of maximizing one’s own gain is not only exploitation, it is plain and simple dehumanization. No wonder people find the work environment is losing all sense of meaning and worth! You can’t dehumanize people and expect human potential to continue to be available: In the end everyone loses.

We each seek work that not only provides the means for existence we also need work to provide a way to meaning in our existence!  People need to be humanly productive through work, and not just materially productive at work.   Accordingly, the more the workplace aligns with our humanness, the more humanly and materially productive the organization will be.

We Need Not Manage This Way

The issue is not whether those in authority within our organizations can get away with objectifying people, but whether people in management should treat other people this way.  Those who argue for this way of managing might say that the organization must show quarter-to-quarter profit gains and therefore gains by whatever means are justified.  Unfortunately justified action does not imply just action!

When you treat people as objects, you are essentially disregarding their humanness, and yours as well. When is this ever a good idea? Isn’t it time we stop to re-think what we are doing to each other (an unavoidably our self)?  Isn’t it time to envision and enact a better way of leading?

Since we participate in creating our reality, if we desire to live in a human world then we each must enact it. Isn’t it time that we act out of our personhood and not from an objectified view of our self.

If not now then when is a better time?  Have we really the time to waste?

In our universe what keeps things together? In a general sense what brings chaos to order?  Gravity. For without it every person and thing would be cast into space, floating aimlessly, making for quite a chaotic existence. If not for gravity then nothing would be at rest on earth.  Moreover this invisible force of attraction provides a general order to the movement of planets in our universe—making it one (whole) system.

The Gravity of Unity

In like fashion organizations need to canalize and unify people’s energy enabling it to function as one system.  Accordingly, the canalizing of human energy requires a cohesive system of beliefs and values that deeply connect people to each other and the organization. This can be accomplished with the guidance of a vision that accesses that part of us that is the same thus enabling us to relate core-to-core irrespective of our external differences.

An organization that is not functioning as one—not a unified whole—is an organization whose energy is thinly scattered and whose demise is imminent.  In short, it is a visionless organization.  That is, vision can act as an attractor facilitating and guiding people toward developing helpful relationships with others and meaningful relationships with their work.  Since an organization is a system of relationships, vision then can be the signpost to wholeness.

Tunnel Vision

It is unfortunate that many believe that it is not what the vision is, but what the vision does that makes it so important. For many having a goal is all that matters.  Accordingly most visions are in effect mission statements—what some might call BHAG (big hairy audacious goal).

As illustration consider GM’s vision, “Design, Build and Sell the World’s Best Vehicles.”  This speaks not of people but of things—yes the objects—the organization makes.  While GM’s statement offers a far-reaching noble goal it does not offer guidance to people toward developing and maintaining meaningful relationships with each other and the work.

When results-only becomes the thing then meaning is lost as everything becomes objectified.  Moreover as concern for results dominate relationships all interaction among people become mere transactions. Unavoidably, motivation turns to movement caused external authority and people become disconnected from the work.  Because engagement in the work turns superficial keeping people on task toward results guides the approach of management.

Let’s quickly revisit the effect of gravity in our world. If the gravitational force were greater, then movement would correspondingly become increasingly more difficult.  In other words, an order providing force taken to the extreme would be all consuming and confining, as what would be found in a black hole.  Black hole like conditions can manifest in organizations when ends supplant meaning and/or when order becomes control. When this happens the light of creativity is inhibited from emerging.

Therefore, because of the power that vision has, what vision is is extremely important.  Consequently, for the organization to sustain viability—which requires creative emergence—those in authority must act from, and be informed by, their humanness in order to lead with vision.

The Gravity of Insight

Vision runs far deeper than the words used to communicate it. Composing a nice sounding statement only requires skillful writing, but discovering meaning through vision requires insight.

Since it emerges from within, it requires listening to and being in touch with the unchanging aspect of our very being, looking deeply inward. Thus, having vision is more than having nice words fit together in a statement for public display; it is having the inner knowledge that there is more to us than our functional fit or the material outcomes that our activities might provide.

Clearly, seen in this light, vision does not require foresight since it is not a future end or goal. It is a beacon that points the way to a mode of being-in-the-world that brings meaning and joy, not at some future time but in the eternal present moment. Put simply, vision is as a description of the way life should now be experienced; a deeply thoughtful—almost philosophic—characterization of the ideals, values and nature of human experiences that resonate within the depths of people. As such it is a heartfelt description of a reality—which manifests as culture—people deeply care about being a part of and collaboratively contribute to realizing.

For example, Jim Goodnight, CEO of SAS Institute Inc (the leader in business analytics software and services) states, “we’ve worked hard to create a corporate culture that is based on trust between our employees and the company…a culture that rewards innovation, encourages employees to try new things and yet doesn’t penalize them for taking chances, and a culture that cares about employees’ personal and professional growth.”  At SAS the belief is “if you treat employees as if they make a difference, they will make a difference.”  Accordingly its people-centered vision reads “SAS transforms the way the world works, giving people THE POWER TO KNOW^Ò”.  Since SAS “integrates the company’s business objectives with employees’ personal needs, the first people they give the power to know are employees.

Thus, with vision as the guide, people are afforded the opportunity to experience an inner sense of significance and meaning in the organization’s work (i.e. their activities), and through these experiences, they are provided the chance to develop and express their unique potential. When people become engaged in their work then work becomes more than a series or collection of abstract or superficial activities they are carrying out for a paycheck: It becomes meaningful to life itself.  Work then is not just a job, it is a joy and the relationship one has with his/her work is not as an object acting on objects, but instead, it becomes a means for connecting us to ourselves and each other.

An organization absent of an enlivening vision—one where functional and inter-functional fit is the sole concern—expunges meaning from life in the organization.  And as meaning fades so too does intrinsic motivation—yes motivation is about meaningfulness!  Thus it is no surprise that most with management positions frequently ask how do I motivate others?  As Herzberg succinctly responded in his now classic 1968 Harvard Business Review article, give them motivating work to do!

It follows, for the organization to remain viable management in authority must contextualize people’s involvement in the functional and inter-functional aspects of the organization’s work by aligning management practice and the work within an enlivening vision.  In other words, vision provides completeness to the organizing structure by bringing an inner sense of order (and thus meaning) to the very human aspects of an organization.  In this way, an enabling or enlivening vision affords the flow of meaning throughout the system and serves as the basis for the self-reinforcing interplay of forces that provides joy in work and value to those it touches—canalizing human energy in a way that contributes positively to human progress, emergence of creativity and organizational viability.

The gravity of vision can’t be overstated, so take extra care when it comes to discovering a shared vision.

Why?  At Proteus ideas leading to patents is a big deal so innovation is a part of everyone’s job. As Andrew tells it, in the lobby of the company “there are shelves of big glass jars and everyone’s name in the company is on one of them” and “if you file a patent or have your name on a patent, we give you a little foam brain” and in these jars is where the foam brain goes.  There is visible recognition but no money (additional) involved.  Accordingly, it seems Andrew realizes that ensuring the viability of the business rests upon ensuring the flow and emergence of ideas.

Fertile Ground is Needed

As discussed in Leading the Bottom from the Top, leaders must create the space so that people can freely exercise their capabilities: A workplace—physical, psychological and temporal space—wherein people can freely exercise their capabilities without fear and constraint.  In other words structure, culture and management practice must align with vision as well as support the mission and its corresponding strategy.

Further, at Proteus there is a bias toward action and risk taking.  This means making a mistake does not earn a penalty, for if it did then people would be fearful of putting forth creative ideas.  As Andrew recognizes, “its really important that you don’t penalize failure.”  At Proteus there is a “very strong bias to action over analytics, and for learning from mistakes and moving forward.”

What is being said is that you learn from a mistake and use the knowledge gained to improve (i.e. move forward).  Both learning-as-you-go and going-as-you-learn are complimentary ways of connecting learning to improvement. Because the conduct of business—any business—provides opportunities to learn and to improve each and every day those in authority must provide enable people to seize these opportunities.  Simply you realize progress without learning!

Recognizing What’s Important

Fostering a sense of what Andrew calls “mutuality” is an important element in the culture as well.  According to Andrew building “a very high level of trust, and a very mutually respectful organization where people work with each other and where employees are recognizing each other—rather than management doing it—“ promotes this sense of mutuality.  One activity that Andrew describes involves employees nominating others (individuals, groups or teams) for recognition for “doing things that specifically demonstrate” the company’s values.  In a company meeting, the nominating employees tell the story about how the nominees exemplified the company’s system of values through quality of work, teamwork and/or leadership.

What this does is build a sense of partnerships across the organization—horizontal strength, not vertical power.  Andrew asserted “the best, strongest and most functional organizations are ones where the horizontal relationships are really powerful and where people trust each other, work with each other, support each other, help each other, hold each other’s hands and move forward together.”  This is what truly supports the work of the organization.  Organizations are a network of relationships of people and unless people are enabled to connect in a very human way their work will lose meaning, and it is meaning that motivates.

As explained in an earlier article management mustn’t foster a culture where ‘what’s in it for Me’ colors all activity; where all meaning is expunged from the work of the enterprise.  The organization must be a place where one’s work is a joy and not merely a job!  The leader’s responsibility is to create the context that is conducive to the emergence of a collaborative and entrepreneurial culture; a self-actualizing system not a self-interest based culture.

It seems that there is a sense of partnership throughout the organization.  Partners help each other by serving to their respective needs according to their ability; it is service to others that is internally acknowledged not formally imposed.

Productive Relationships

When the organization’s values resonate with everyone then a unity of mind emerges which fosters consistency, collaboration and shared commitment.  To this end hiring at Proteus is about seeking people that ‘fit’ the culture not just the task of the job.  As Andrew explained, “we don’t hire pegs, we hire people.  We have job descriptions, but we’re looking for very capable authentic personalities…The single most important aspect of the hiring process is the human interaction—the cultural fit and the person’s raw talent…We want people who come to work with their head, their heart and their hands. All of it. You want the whole person walking through the door.”

Clearly Andrew Thompson understands that an organization is a human system not a mechanical system, “where people come to live as well as to work.”  It is a human activity system and as a result culture is capability, for it is enabling to the human spirit.

Andrew’s understanding of leadership is that leaders serve the needs of those performing the work of the organization. As management in authority within Proteus Andrew says his job is not to gain control over people but it “is to get them the resources, whether it’s money or budget, or tools, or training, to get their jobs done.”

However when you allow yourself to be defined by a position or title—or in any other objectified manner—you essentially turn your concept of self into an abstraction.  You become an object to your own life, rather than the subject.

Moreover making one marketable and saleable, as if a commodity, for the attainment and acquisition of things makes one’s sense of self quite precarious and vulnerable to external forces.  It is then understandable why so many feel the need to (try to) control everything.

Moving further away from the concrete person you are, you separate your self from your self, and unavoidably from others shortly thereafter.  Instead of trust—which we need—we have fear.  We fear that we will not have enough or gain enough or reach a high enough status.

If you wish to live life fully as a human being, then don’t allow your self to be consumed by the pursuit of things of outer value. Believing that actualizing one’s potential happens from getting and having is not the way to a meaningful or even a peaceful existence.

Perhaps it would be wise to cease climbing and start caring.  Care about being and becoming.  You must first embrace being human before you can become the human being that you potentially are.

Those who do great things in this world don’t give up the gift of (their) life to a role, a position or possessions.  They live authentically giving (their) life’s gift in each moment—the essence of leadership. To quote e.e. cummings, “If you can be, be.  If not, cheer up and go on about other people’s business, doing and undoing unto others ‘til you drop.”