Leaders today all want more engaged employees—both in the sense that leaders want more employees who are engaged AND leaders want all employees to be MORE HIGHLY engaged. Including employees in decision-making is a sure fire way to increase engagement, but inclusion can take many forms…including TELLING, ASKING, and INFLUENCING. My definitions of these words are as follows:
Telling: Inclusion by “telling” means the leader is simply informing an employee of a decision that has already been made—either directly or through the employee’s direct manager (depending on the size of the organization); these are decisions that leaders “own” or choose to own. Leaders may (or may not) ask for input before making a final decision, but in the end, the decision is owned by the leader, despite whatever input he or she may have received from their employees. The key to success for this kind of inclusion is for leaders to truly “own” the choice to tell…many considerations for decisions are outside a leaders’ control but the CHOICE to tell vs. ask vs. influence is NOT.
Asking: Here inclusion takes the form of employees getting to “own” the choice; usually within some set boundaries. The key for this type of inclusion is to lay out any boundary lines, discuss, and coach along the way if appropriate. In this case, the employees get to “own” their choice…come what may.
Influencing: This type of inclusion is one in which leader prefers employees make a decision without TELLING them they must. I may have the power to tell, but I choose not to tell—instead I, as the leader, leave it up to the employee(s). However, I do “have a horse in the race,” so to speak and I choose to be open about that. The key here is for employees to be willing and “safe” to disagree with you. If employees believe that public disagreement with a leader is taboo, your influence is tantamount to telling.
As you probably guessed, the greatest level of engagement comes from “asking.” Influencing is next and typically the least amount of engagement comes from just telling. The only exception to this is when leaders profess to be practicing one type of inclusion, but in reality are really doing another. This lack of “integrity” is the most surefire way to decrease engagement. The key is to be clear, inside and out, of which of these you are willing to do and stay with it. If you have made the “wrong” choice, you can change your mind…just communicate that to your employees, as well!
Call The Bailey Group to discuss employee engagement concerns and leadership decisions within your organization, 763-545-5997.
763-545-5997
If You Can’t Beat ‘Em…Join ‘Em
My turn for the blog again…which means Leigh is either out of town or enjoying this sunny weather “course-side” (read: golf). I was glad to have the opportunity to blog this week as I’ve been considering an interesting workplace dynamic lately and wanted to share with our readers. As an almost-masters-program-graduate working within a consulting firm of seasoned professionals, I find myself contemplating generational differences quite often. One might even assume that being a direct report to Leigh Bailey, himself, the dynamics of “his world/my world” are significant…or are they?
I was reading an article the other day specifically on generational differences in the workplace and so found myself thinking about what it’s like to be a Gen X’er working for a Boomer. The article discussed Baby Boomer’s, Gen X’ers and Gen Y’s varied perceptions of “self,” the ideal manager and the ideal workplace situation. I was struck by the following descriptions of Boomer vs. Gen X’er:
“As workers, Boomers value team work, team meetings and talking together; they tend to be viewed as workaholics because they believe value is tied to the number of hours worked…the Boomer generation was the first to use work as self-fulfillment and to prove themselves – individuals of this group often defined themselves by their careers…(FWI, 2002).” In contrast: “In the workplace, most Generation X individuals expect to have a career…they need freedom and autonomy and do not value paying dues like their Boomer forerunners; X’ers tend to want a goal and the freedom to use their creativity to reach it rather than defined guidance and steps to take…Generation X wants to work in an environment with fluid boundaries that are beyond more traditional job-specific tasks. The management style these workers respond to is a pull rather than push – indirect control that is based on self discipline in an environment with clearly defined expectations and outcomes but the freedom to operate autonomously to reach those outcomes (Buckley, 2001).
Generational differences are inarguably a potential factor in workplace harmony. Obviously, varied life stages, experiences, expectations, perspectives, goals, and interpretations of success are possible points of conflict and contention. However, I think it’s important to recognize that with the right system…the right balance…the generational differences don’t have to automatically equate to dissention. Those differences can actually complement each other and make your workforce stronger. Leigh and I are fortunate enough to have a high mutual regard and trust for one another. He understands and respects the demands I face in balancing work responsibilities with the extraordinary demands of five kids, a husband and schoolwork. I understand that his name is on the wall and I better do my job and do it well…I’m joking, of course. But I do have a healthy respect for Leigh, his experiences, expertise and accomplishments; Boomer or not. I don’t fight what he has to offer in terms of a leader and he believes in the best of what I bring to the table; Gen X or not. It works for us and for the organization and while it isn’t always instinctive or easy, we do consistently keep each other in check.
If you’re struggling with understanding generational differences in your workplace or are experiencing any sort of disharmony within your organization, give us a call or check out our website a little further. We have many solutions available and would love to talk to you about your specific situation; 763-545-5997.
References:
Buckley, M. Ronald, Beu, Danielle S., Novicevic, Milorad M., and Sigerstad Thomas D. 2001. Managing Generation NeXt: Individual and Organizational Perspectives. Review of Business, Summer 2001, v22 i1 p81.
Families and Work Institute, 2002.Generation and Gender in the Workplace. http://www.familiesandwork.org
Telling and Asking and Influencing (Oh My!)…Create More Engaged Employees
Leaders today all want more engaged employees—both in the sense that leaders want more employees who are engaged AND leaders want all employees to be MORE HIGHLY engaged. Including employees in decision-making is a sure fire way to increase engagement, but inclusion can take many forms…including TELLING, ASKING, and INFLUENCING. My definitions of these words are as follows:
Telling: Inclusion by “telling” means the leader is simply informing an employee of a decision that has already been made—either directly or through the employee’s direct manager (depending on the size of the organization); these are decisions that leaders “own” or choose to own. Leaders may (or may not) ask for input before making a final decision, but in the end, the decision is owned by the leader, despite whatever input he or she may have received from their employees. The key to success for this kind of inclusion is for leaders to truly “own” the choice to tell…many considerations for decisions are outside a leaders’ control but the CHOICE to tell vs. ask vs. influence is NOT.
Asking: Here inclusion takes the form of employees getting to “own” the choice; usually within some set boundaries. The key for this type of inclusion is to lay out any boundary lines, discuss, and coach along the way if appropriate. In this case, the employees get to “own” their choice…come what may.
Influencing: This type of inclusion is one in which leader prefers employees make a decision without TELLING them they must. I may have the power to tell, but I choose not to tell—instead I, as the leader, leave it up to the employee(s). However, I do “have a horse in the race,” so to speak and I choose to be open about that. The key here is for employees to be willing and “safe” to disagree with you. If employees believe that public disagreement with a leader is taboo, your influence is tantamount to telling.
As you probably guessed, the greatest level of engagement comes from “asking.” Influencing is next and typically the least amount of engagement comes from just telling. The only exception to this is when leaders profess to be practicing one type of inclusion, but in reality are really doing another. This lack of “integrity” is the most surefire way to decrease engagement. The key is to be clear, inside and out, of which of these you are willing to do and stay with it. If you have made the “wrong” choice, you can change your mind…just communicate that to your employees, as well!
Call The Bailey Group to discuss employee engagement concerns and leadership decisions within your organization, 763-545-5997.