First pick of the week is under the umbrella of the August monthly theme: ”Engaging the distributed organization” - “Did you see those Gallup numbers? How do we get our people engaged? Build us a program.” – Leaders Everywhere
I think "engagement as a choice" misses two key issues that lead to failure in improving engagement:
1. It assumes that only "leaders" can change the environment, amplifying lack of agency and "learned helplessness" in everyone else, which in turn leads to low engagement. Shaping the environment is a collaborative effort to which different people in different roles contribute in different ways. More here: https://medium.com/org-hacking/working-on-work-e5c6fd18cf71
2. It builds on Lewin's equation B=f(Env,P) and completely ignores one element of the equation. It assumes that only the environment can be changed, but the person is fixed. That's treating people like machines, assuming that their attitudes and mindsets are unchangeable. A holistic approach to engagement aims to change both the environment and the person. More here: https://medium.com/org-hacking/self-engagement-murphy-ac7b56c42c00
The plasticity of self-engagement outlooks looks like a promising area of study. Will dive deeper into this.
My view is that:
1. (agree to your point) Not only "leaders" can change the environment - this view is core to our OD practice
2. (building on your point) There's still much to learn about what makes each of us behave the way we do.. I'm continuously surprised by the results of the behavioral science studies
3. Even though the On The Mark article has some limitations in the argumentation (not one view is perfect), the invitation to reflect about how much of the engagement at work is a choice is valuable
I'm curious if you found some relevant research combining 1. engagement and 2. distributed work in particular. Much appreciated!
I think "engagement as a choice" misses two key issues that lead to failure in improving engagement:
1. It assumes that only "leaders" can change the environment, amplifying lack of agency and "learned helplessness" in everyone else, which in turn leads to low engagement. Shaping the environment is a collaborative effort to which different people in different roles contribute in different ways. More here: https://medium.com/org-hacking/working-on-work-e5c6fd18cf71
2. It builds on Lewin's equation B=f(Env,P) and completely ignores one element of the equation. It assumes that only the environment can be changed, but the person is fixed. That's treating people like machines, assuming that their attitudes and mindsets are unchangeable. A holistic approach to engagement aims to change both the environment and the person. More here: https://medium.com/org-hacking/self-engagement-murphy-ac7b56c42c00
Valuable contributions, Itamar, thank you!
The plasticity of self-engagement outlooks looks like a promising area of study. Will dive deeper into this.
My view is that:
1. (agree to your point) Not only "leaders" can change the environment - this view is core to our OD practice
2. (building on your point) There's still much to learn about what makes each of us behave the way we do.. I'm continuously surprised by the results of the behavioral science studies
3. Even though the On The Mark article has some limitations in the argumentation (not one view is perfect), the invitation to reflect about how much of the engagement at work is a choice is valuable
I'm curious if you found some relevant research combining 1. engagement and 2. distributed work in particular. Much appreciated!
Bülent