the blog of dan pontefract | Whose Job Is Leadership, Anyway?
10107
single,single-post,postid-10107,single-format-standard,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-5.0,vc_responsive

Whose Job Is Leadership, Anyway?

leadershipsignHow does the current state of leadership affect employee engagement? What is the effect of both good and bad leadership as it pertains to organizational health and engagement?

From a leadership perspective, who actually is responsible for employee engagement?

Who is responsible for the act of leadership?

According to Hay Group, a global management consulting firm, 63 per cent of CEOs and other members of the top team reckon it’s the top leaders in the company who are “chiefly responsible for staff engagement and leadership,” but only 38 per cent of those outside the C-Suite agree that the top tier is responsible. Now that is a disturbing leadership and engagement paradox.

Is job satisfaction correlated to employee engagement? Or is job satisfaction more correlated to life satisfaction as per the research conducted by Rain, Lane and Steiner? And if it is — if job satisfaction is akin to life satisfaction — are leaders paying enough attention to their employees such that they are in fact caring about their lives, connecting in ways that allow them to enact life-work balance and a sense of community, and a sense of belonging with their colleagues? Do today’s leaders actually care about the person that is doing the work? Do they even know their name let alone what provides them with job satisfaction?

Between 1985 and 2005, the number of Americans who stated they felt satisfied with the way life was treating them decreased by roughly 30 per cent. Even more shocking was the number of dissatisfied people; this increased by nearly 50 per cent. The reasons appear to be related to Americans’ declining attachments to friends and family, lower participation in social and civic activities, and diminished trust in political institutions.

Rather than life imitating art, is life imitating the organization instead? As levels of employee engagement have dropped and subsequently stagnated over the past thirty years, it’s no wonder the perceived quality of life has decreased as well.

This begs the question whether today’s leaders know if members of their direct report teams have children or not? It’s cheeky, I know, but it’s a valid question. Does leadership equate to cardboard cut-out relationships or is it an engaging and personal liaison opportunity?

If employees are enthusiastic, committed, passionate, and generally into their work, isn’t it time leaders of any stripe, at any step in the hierarchy chain, acted with more humility and were less parochial?

Does the health of an organization and its overall engagement correlate to productivity and in return financial results?

Does it correlate to customer loyalty, employee turnover and retention? While the questions may sound rhetorical, why do command-and-control tactics dominate the workspace versus “cultivate and coordinate” as per MIT Sloan School of Management professor Tom Malone’s suggestion from his book The Future of Work?

Have we not reached, therefore, a professional paradox in the workplace?

Shouldn’t we be advocating for and developing a more engaged leader?

Has the organization become so blind that, within the underbelly of the top leadership ranks, a professional mutiny is in the works? Perhaps it’s already in motion. A mutiny that manifests in human capital contradiction where employees are either punching in their time to simply get through the day or they are in eternal job searches hunting for the Holy Grail organization that actually cares about their well-being.

And leaders, who sit ignorant to the brewing storm, continue to commit crimes of managerial misdemeanor.

The job that people perform is central, or at least a large part of their personal identity.

Picture yourself meeting someone for the first time at a cocktail party or a community gathering or your child’s first soccer practice. What do you inevitably ask within the first two minutes of your initial conversation?

“So, what do you do? Where do you work? How long have you been there?”

When your new acquaintance looks sheepish or worse nosedives into an apoplectic rant about their place of work, you might do one of three things:

  • Wince, smile and nod, and affirm that their place of work is awful;
  • Agree to never buy the company’s product or service due to this diabolical repudiation; and/or
  • Hold your breath, wait for the conversation to end, and find the nearest safe harbor as soon as you can.

flatarmy_frontcoverEmployees in today’s organization are expecting more from leaders than what is currently being offered. Sadly and paradoxically, 69 per cent of executives agree they too feel engagement and leadership is a problem in their organization.

It is time to connect the dots between leadership, engagement, learning, technology and collaboration. It is time for the act of leadership to be carried out by everyone in the organization.

In my opinion, it is time for a Flat Army in our organizations.

3Comments

  • Steve Gannon / 4 April 2014 7:32

    Hey Dan,

    I absolutely agree with you. Everyone of us is responsible for acting like Leaders, and the difference in the workplace when we do, is unbelievable. I’ve been saying the same things at Leaderisticality.com. And unfortunately… in my experience, it’s really hard to act like a good Leader in a workplace where Leadership is not valued or rewarded. I did my best, in my last workplace, to create a culture of Leadership, and develop Leaders. I was able to do so for a few years, and in the end I simply had to leave, as the time and energy commitment wasn’t valued at all. Unless the people at the top align the reward systems with the values of Leadership, I’m afraid we will always find ourselves at odds with those at the top.

    Steve

  • Elizabeth Vasquez / 4 April 2014 10:13

    Dan

    I’ve had the opportunity to lead many teams that were considered in need of a rebuild. Inevitably, most issues led to low employee engagement bred by poor previous management. The lack of leadership in the front line caused a ripple effect that impacted performance. Teams with the same lack of resources but with great leadership would have better results and high morale. It makes you wonder at how many more studies need to show the ROI of distant managers. Good employees can only fight against disengagement for so long before giving into the malaise that follows unhappy employees. As you pointed out, it impacts the individual professionally and personally.

    Thank you for the reminder that my primary responsibility as a manager is to continue to invest, promote, and encourage my team!

    Elizabeth Vasquez
    Roosevelt TRDV Student
    RUtraining.wordpress.com

  • 5 items re: robotics / 3 May 2014 4:47

    […] Dan Pontefract Whose job is leadership, anyway? […]

Want to leave a comment? I'd love to hear from you. Cheers, dp.