I was once told that the purpose of a business is to make money. I don't believe that any more. Now I believe that the purpose of a business to to make its employees happy.<p>It is pretty much a necessary condition, then, that you do make money, but making money does not, of itself, make your employees happy.<p>I'd rather have a company that makes its employees happy, and makes money becuase it's a necessary condition, rather than to have, purely as my business goal, to make money.<p>Management similarly. People think the role of management is to get people to do work. It isn't. It's to make people happy. If you do so without them doing any work then it won't last, so getting them to do work is necessary, but that's not the true goal.<p>(Note: I don't actually believe the extreme position as stated, but it is the mindset I strive for and occasionally achieve.)
An anecdote is not proof, but I personally went from hating my job to loving my job, while working for the same company and doing mostly the same work for the same pay.<p>The difference? I went from working alone under a manager who seemed indifferent to my creative ideas and hard work, to working with a team under a manager who said "that's awesome" when I showed him my work.<p>Guess when I got more cool stuff done?
Great article, key points:<p>o In a world of commoditized knowledge, the returns go to the companies who can produce non-standard knowledge.<p>o Success here is measured by profit per employee, adjusted for capital intensity.<p>o What matters is its relative "share of customer value" in the final product or solution, and its cost of producing that value.<p>o The greater your share of differentiation is the greater your bargaining power with business partners is.<p>o The lower your cost to produce that value is, the bigger your profits are.
First the facts:<p>> Here’s what the researchers discovered: barely one-fifth (21%) of employees are truly engaged in their work, in the sense that they would “go the extra mile” for their employer. Nearly four out of ten (38%) are mostly or entirely disengaged, while the rest are in the tepid middle.<p>Now the unwarranted conclusions:<p>> There’s no way to sugarcoat it—this data represents a stinging indictment of the legacy management practices found in most companies.<p>It does? Why? Maybe without the managers, employees would be even less engaged.
I disagree with the base assumption that a manager's job is to make employees engaged or inspired. A manager's role is to cause work to be done (by other people). Effectiveness of management is measured by productivity, not surveys.<p>More generally, there's a tendency to conflate management and leadership. Management is about operations and efficiency and production. Leadership is about inspiration and engagement. The two are related, to be sure, but distantly. Certainly, if I'm engaged, I'll work harder. But inspiration alone isn't going to streamline workflow, or increase accountability, or acquire the right tools, or choose the correct problem to be solving in the first place. It's not even going to do that great a job at keeping people on task and in scope.<p>To be sure, engagement is a useful quality. But first, it's not a necessary one, and second, it's not the role of management. If it's anyone's role, it's the role of executives. The ones with vision making bold statements and sweeping changes, not the ones down in the weeds doing the tactical work of maintaining the metaphorical tubes of work in the plumbing of productivity.
Dan Pink has a great talk about motivation on TED.<p><a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/dan%5Fpink%5Fon%5Fmotivation.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.ted.com/talks/dan%5Fpink%5Fon%5Fmotivation.html</a>
perhaps 79% of management are also disengaged from their work. The alienation of labor is pretty much complete, even for management. Most jobs are about paying the mortgage, nothing more.
I thought this part was insightful: "three things that are critical to engagement: first, the scope employees have to learn and advance- are there opportunities for them to grow; second, the company’s reputation and its commitment to making a difference in the world- is this a company that deserves the best efforts of its people; and third, the behaviors and values of the organization’s leaders- are they people employees respect and want to follow?"
Actions speak louder than words. And it's a two way street.<p>Engagement may be a valid measure (if somewhat abstract). But I've heard an awful lot of lip service paid to it, by the same people who are saying no not just to pay increases but to upgrading that three year old computer or otherwise providing an environment conducive to actually getting the work done.<p>When you're young, you try hard because the prevailing social message (at least in the circles I traveled) is that hard work pays off. After you see enough with your own eyes, you may either "check out" or learn to be much more discriminating about where and when you apply your effort.<p>I've had a few genuinely good (to/for me and my work) managers. Unfortunately, sooner or later, they all seemed to end up fighting the tide. That may be a reflection of the macro-economic changes going on in the U.S.<p>My one bit of advice is not to stay in such circumstances. If you can afford to, walk away. To the extent you can, try to keep your life structured so that you can afford to do so when needed.<p>Management is the aggregation of work effort. If bad management can't attract any work effort, it will die off. Another reason to avoid monopolies -- so that they cannot set themselves up as the only game in town.
Most corporate managers are fighting the last generation's war, operating under a mentality that is outdated, but pervasive at all levels of corporate America.<p>If you're running a plantation or a coal mine, the work is physically difficult and the rewards are minimal, so you have to be either (a) generous or (b) brutal in order to get people to work. Historically, the latter option was more popular.<p>Thus, we end up with the entrenched (but increasingly wrong) idea that people have to be intimidated into working, or they'll shirk: "Theory X", in management parlance. It works if you're running a coal mine; not so much for a software shop.<p>Of course, most bosses would rather be "Theory Y" (nurturing, encouraging) than X. Few people want to be assholes. The problem is that a manager who's permissive and nurturing will be regarded well by his subordinates, and held in good regard during good times, but if something happens outside of his control, he's likely to take blame from above for having been "too soft". Follow the ladder high enough, and at some point you're likely to encounter someone with the old mentality (or an egomaniac, or an asshole).