Butterfly Engagement: Leadership's Impact on Morale
•Download as PPT, PDF•
2 likes•1,123 views
Employee Engagement and the Butterfly Effect by Dr. Eli Sopow presented to the Lead Change Group in the November 2009 conference call.
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Butterfly Engagement: Leadership's Impact on Morale
Similar to Butterfly Engagement: Leadership's Impact on Morale (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Butterfly Engagement: Leadership's Impact on Morale
- 1. Dr. Eli Sopow November 16, 2009 Improving workplace engagement, morale, job satisfaction and productivity through the lessons of nature. Butterfly Engagement
- 2. A metaphor from chaos theory “ Does the flap of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil set off a tornado in Texas?” Edward Lorenz, 1972 Meteorologist Eli Sopow, PhD
- 3. “ Like a living organism, a military organization is never in a state of stable equilibrium but is instead in a continuous state of flux, continuously adjusting to its surroundings. “ Command and control is not so much a matter of one part of the organization getting control over another as it is something that connects all the elements together in a cooperative effort.” United States Marine Corps “ Command and Control” Leadership manual MCDP6, 1999 The practical application of complexity science Eli Sopow, PhD
- 4. “ Organizations are not mechanical; they are organic . To see organizations through the agricultural paradigm is to see them as living, growing things made up of living, growing people. “ Living things are not immediately ‘fixed’ by replacing nonworking parts; they are nurtured over time to produce desired results.” Stephen Covey Principle-Centered Leadership , 1991 The practical application of complexity science Eli Sopow, PhD
- 5. The L.E.A.D. System of networked relationships Leadership, engagement, action & development Eli Sopow, PhD
- 6. Authority -clear direction -shared power -adaptive leadership Collaboration -wide networks -shared goals -mutual respect Accountability -clear expectations -regular measures -consequences Cooperation -aware of others -trust in others -consensus driven Responsibility -dependable -self-aware -adaptable Communications -honest & open -Relevant & timely -two-way How it all ties together: The L.E.A.D. Network Eli Sopow, PhD
- 7. A COLD HARD FACT The majority of emotional stress in the workplace is caused NOT by the nature of the work…but by the nature and quality of direct supervision and leadership. Eli Sopow, PhD
- 10. A single action can have huge consequences Eli Sopow, PhD
- 13. Employees who often had a chance to provide feedback to supervisors had a job satisfaction rate 3 times higher than those who rarely had a chance for feedback. Eli Sopow, PhD
- 14. The difference between doing a “good” and “very good” job in supervision / leadership can result in hugely different outcomes that ripple across many engagement factors. Eli Sopow, PhD
- 15. Perceived recognition for a job well done and perception of workplace engagement factors Agree/strongly agree Personnel survey Eli Sopow, PhD
- 16. Perceived opportunity to provide feedback to supervisors and perception of workplace engagement factors Personnel survey High/very high Eli Sopow, PhD
- 17. In summary The level of employee job satisfaction, morale, and general engagement is contingent on a few key supervisor / leader behaviors. The top factors include fair treatment, trust, accountability, knowing expectations, conflict resolution, and having a say—being taken seriously. Doing a VERY good job on any one of those factors can send a positive Butterfly Effect across many other factors. Eli Sopow, PhD
- 18. To continue the dialogue and learn / share more… Dr. Eli Sopow [email_address] www.bioleadership.org 604-264-2971 Vancouver, Canada
Editor's Notes
- This session provides a brief overview of a new way of thinking about organizations. It is a break from traditional hierarchical systems of command and control that are chiefly mechanistic in nature. What you will explore is the humanistic, organic, networked approach to organizations called Complexity Science. The butterfly-looking graphic on the introductory page is an actual representation of a computer model by meteorologist Edward Lorenz. Lorenz discovered in 1961 that a very tiny change to a mathematical formula created a very different outcome than predicted. This discovery has had huge implications for not just predicting weather patterns but also how change can affect workplace environments.
- Edward Lorenz’ work resulted in his famous question in a paper he presented in 1972. His point in using the butterfly metaphor was that all systems—whether in nature or in organizations—cannot be precisely predicted over the long term and that even one change amongst several variables can set off a ripple effect throughout the entire system. Lorenz’ work is a cornerstone of Chaos Theory as well as Complexity Science. The point is that within a complex adaptive system—which most organizations are—issues and actions continually ebb and flow. In reality the energy within an organization constantly changes; organizations are more humanistic than mechanistic; actions cannot be predicted with any accuracy over the long term; and trying to preserve the status quo or “control” or “contain” change is a fool’s game. Today many organization from major health care centers in the U.S. to the U.S. Marine Corp understand how the teachings of complexity science make a whole lot more sense than discredited Industrial Age models.
- One such organization is the U.S. Marine Corps which fully grasps how organizations really work. Reading this excerpt from one of the Corps’s leadership manuals one could be forgiven if the first thought coming to mind was that this was a page ripped from some “touchy-feely” environmental group. In reality it is a very sophisticated understanding of how organizations really work and a perfect example of complexity science in action. Note particularly the terms “continuously adjusting,” “connects all elements,” and “cooperative effort.” As a team leader with the Corps said, even the language is changing with the phrase “command and control” being replaced with “command and coordinate.” As she said, “we can’t always control battle space but we can coordinate our actions through a clear command structure.”
- Stephen Covey, a leading light in leadership development, also embraced the notion of organic and humanistic systems over mechanistic, rigid ones. In his 1991 book he uses terms such as “organic,” “living growing things,” “living growing people,” and “nurtured.” This thinking is a dramatic departure from seeing people as inert and interchangeable cogs on a wheel—a notion literally advocated by Fredrick Taylor in 1912, the architect of Scientific Management. What the U.S. Marine Corps, Stephen Covey, and many others today acknowledge is the fact that organizations are places with human beings who have a range of strong emotions, have varied human needs and behaviors, and who both seek and thrive from collaborative relationships. The role of leaders in such a networked, organic world is to create the most nurturing environment possible. Or, as complexity science advocate and scholar Ralph Stacey has said, “farmers don’t grow wheat. They create the conditions for wheat to grow.”
- One way to visualize and put into practice the conditions necessary for a networked organization to flourish is through what I call the LEAD System (leadership, engagement, action & development). The LEAD System recognizes that organizations naturally operate in networked structures, both formal and informal. Corporations may try and stuff functions and categories of employees into neat boxes on an organization chart but in reality the nature of human activity is to connect and cooperate. This approach has been around for tens of thousands of years. It is why humans survived.
- There are six core interrelated systems within the LEAD Network, all influencing one another to varying degrees. A healthy organization has all six systems working together (you’ll notice three success factors under each of the six categories). For example a supervisor or employee who is being held responsible and accountable for certain actions, but who has limited or no authority to make things happen, will be frustrated, angry, and unlikely to be as effective as possible. Sometimes they get creative and “go around the system.” More likely they just get increasingly disenchanted and burnt out. Also, collaboration and cooperation is highly unlikely without effective communications that is honest and open, timely and relevant, and two-way (both sharing and listening). As the LEAD Network shows, all six systems are intertwined. A change in the energy or performance of one has a direct impact on many or all others. But what are the specific human behaviors attached to the six systems?
- One thing we do know about organizations is what happens when there’s a disconnect within the important six systems of the LEAD Network. Many studies prove that the majority of emotional stress in the workplace is caused not by the kind of work people do—many people actually like their job—but by the quality of direct supervision they have. The number of toxic workplaces in the U.S. and North America is close to epidemic proportions evidenced by the high levels of burnout, depression, and stress leave. Disconnects in the six system network also result in low engagement, “presenteeism,” low morale, and low job satisfaction. This all translated directly into low productivity and usually unhappy customers and clients. So—what’s needed to have a highly engaged workplace?
- The research I’m providing you is based on work I was involved in over the past year with about 3,800 Canadian employees. The employee’s attitudes about their workplace and leadership was measured through both an on-line survey with questions about engagement and leadership as well as follow-up focus groups. The final results were also compared to several North American studies of workplace engagement and leadership including the 2009 Index of Leadership Trust produced by the Institute of Leadership & Management in Britain and the November 2009 National Study of Confidence in Leadership produced by the Harvard Kennedy School Center for Public Leadership. Basically what I’m about to share, in my opinion, can be generalized across many corporations and sectors in North America. In fact in a recent conversation with some of you I’m finding that you have similar data from your own work with clients.
- Our study found that employees want these top six attributes to be strongly present in their workplace. But the factors don’t exist in separate boxes. They are all interrelated. Which means that if a very good job is being done on one of the six, there’s a statistically significant correlation to the other five. A butterfly flaps its fairness wings and the result is higher trust, better accountability, better conflict resolution and so forth. What do some of the terms mean to employees? This is an important question because definitions of even the most “simple” word can be varied depending on the employee. For example we discovered through open-ended questions and focus groups that “fair treatment” had 24 different definitions but the most common related to treated all categories of employee regardless of position or title, or gender or ethnic background, equally when it came to training and other opportunities. It also meant having respect for the individual and their knowledge and achievements. And it meant processes of dispute resolution and decision-making that involved employees in collaboration and listening to their input—and then telling them why a decision went the way it did. In fact the PROCESS was far more important to employees that the OUTCOME.
- We also learned that—as in the Butterfly Effect from chaos theory and complexity science—that a single action can result in huge consequences. What this means to training and development is that a focus on just a few key leadership / supervisory factors can result is a rising of the tide on many associated issues.
- The research showed that if employees worked for a supervisor that they respected and trusted, their overall average engagement level based on 16 indicators was TWICE AS HIGH as for those employees who did not work for a trusted-respected supervisor (for the trusted group it was it was in the high 70% range). When asked what “trust” meant, employees listed many of the attributes and behaviors commonly associated with the definition of trust. These included the supervisor (leader) having technical competency, having shared values and concerns, being consistent and dependable, being fair and honest, having a proven track record, and “walking the talk.” Employees who felt that a very good job was being done on treating them fairly (as defined in the earlier slide) had more than twice the engagement level (also in the high 70% range) than employees who felt they were not treated fairly. Fair treatment also positively spilled over into much higher levels of morale and job satisfaction which is usually equated with more productive and creative employees who make for happier customers.
- Job recognition is very important to employees in most organizations. Why? For many it is a validation of their worth, a contribution to their self-esteem, and a boost to their sense of belonging. What our research showed was that employees who often received recognition for a job well done had morale four times higher than those who felt job recognition was important but they rarely or never received any. It was also understood that job recognition should not be gratuitous. It should not be awarded in a casual way for average work as a “morale booster.” Employees know very well when they have “reached higher” and when their colleagues have gone beyond the call of regular duty. Giving out kudos for no good reason (but to be a popular leader-supervisor) diminishes the value of the currency.
- Earlier we reviewed the importance of fairness as a PROCESS and not as a PRODUCT or OUTCOME. A key part of any organizational process is asking employees for feedback and then actually listening to and considering that feedback—and getting back to people why their ideas made it or not. This is the essence of what Peter Senge calls the “learning organization.” Our research confirmed this obvious fact. Indeed employees who strongly agreed that they very often had a chance to provide feedback had a job satisfaction level that was three times higher than those employees who agreed feedback was very important but rarely or never had a chance to give it.
- Usually in an employee survey researchers combine the “good” and “very good” ratings and provide you with a combined rating. Same for “high” and “very high.” While there’s nothing wrong with that you can get a far more precise picture by slicing the data a little finer. Jim Collins in his book “Good to Great” writes of the importance of not just being “good” but being “great.” The same lessons can come from employee surveys. In our research we found that the difference between doing a “good job” and a “very good” job as a leader or supervisor can produce some very dramatically different results. In other words, being “good” is not “good enough” if you really want to create a high energy, thriving and productive workplace.
- This graph show two groups: The BLUE LINE—these are supervisors who got a very good rating on providing job recognition to employees. The RED LINE—these are supervisors who got a good rating on providing job recognition to employees. You also see across the chart five areas of workplace engagement, each rated on a combined agree/strongly agree scale. Here’s what this chart shows: Supervisors who were rated as very good in giving workplace recognition ALSO had employees who rated “knowing expectations” at 70%, work-life balance at 44%, morale at 44%, “job satisfaction up over the past year” at 38%, and “being treated fairly” at 74%. However supervisors who were rated as good in giving recognition ALSO had employees who rated “knowing expectations” at just 23%, work-life balance at 35%, morale at 11%, “job satisfaction up over the past year” at 20%, and “being treated fairly” at 23%.
- Again we have two groups: The BLUE LINE—these are supervisors who got a very good rating on creating opportunities for employee feedback. The RED LINE—these are supervisors who got a good rating on creating opportunities for feedback. And again across the chart are five areas of workplace engagement, each rated on a combined agree/strongly agree scale. Supervisors who were rated as very good in creating opportunities for feedback ALSO had employees who rated “knowing expectations” at 56%, work-life balance at 42%, morale at 41%, “job satisfaction up over the past year” at 33%, and “being treated fairly” at 50%. However supervisors who were rated as good in creating opportunities for feedback ALSO had employees who rated “knowing expectations” at just 13%, work-life balance at 29%, morale at 5%, “job satisfaction up over the past year” at 9%, and “being treated fairly” at 18%.
- What the quick snapshots from the previous slides show is that just a few things can make a big difference in workplace morale and job satisfaction. Even as important is the statistical analysis which shows that there can be very positive correlations between doing a “very” good job on one key supervisory and leadership attribute and many other workplace expectations. While the results are likely generalizable across many organizations it is strongly recommended that this kind of analysis be carried out in each workplace. There is no one size that fits all.
- If you’d like more information, or are interested in my partnership with you in conducted an organization-specific analysis of employee engagement-leadership factors, please give me a call or send me an e-mail. Thanks! Eli