Engagement On-the-Job PART TWO

THE KEY POINT from ENGAGEMENT On-the-Job, PHASE ONE  was that the recipe for high engagement has three main ingredients:

1. Alignment and clarity of direction, goals and expectations;
2. Satisfaction driven by connecting with an individual’s values or motivators and strengths; and
3. Delivering results.

PHASE TWO gets complicated as there can be different outcomes after the initial newness wears off. To engage, or not to engage….that is the question.

PHASE TWO: Making the Turn to High Engagement

With experience and time, people in new assignments gather momentum and they begin delivering results of substance. Goals are established that are aligned with the company’s larger goals and efforts and strengths became more of a high-powered rifle than the shotgun they were previously.

As this topic took shape, it became clear that the impact of leadership style on engagement is a very important “AHA”. I was in Phase Two on at least three occasions, with one key difference—the leadership style of the manager to whom I reported. Here are a few of my paths to engagement and, unfortunately, disengagement. These are presented in universal terms where possible. Can you relate?

PHASE TWO(a). My leader was as new as I was to the greenfield project. He was my “manager” on the org chart only, and we worked as equals in every other respect. We had different strengths and complemented each other very well. It took time to make the turn but we both became very highly engaged, producing results and highly satisfied. We were ‘in the zone’ and winning championships… PHASE THREE: the Home Stretch.

When my manager retired, I was fortunate enough to get a new manager who was also very hands-off, and who had a complementary set of strengths to mine. Again, we worked extremely well together. The string of championships continued without missing a beat until that manager took an opportunity outside of the company.

POINT: new leader transitions can be seamless. It takes more than luck; it takes an intuitive leader, a good fit, and a conscious effort to make the transition smooth with minimal disruption. Minimal damage to existing levels of engagement is the payback.

PHASE TWO(b). Same assignment as 2(a), but with yet another new manager who was new to the department, new to the work. This manager was eager to learn everything there was to learn, which translated into micro-management. I was expected to provide a detailed accounting of everything I had done and everything that was in process, in an endless stream of status update meetings. Result: I disengaged. My satisfaction was terminal, and my contribution level suffered as well. It seemed at least that I was expected to account for my work so much that I couldn’t continue contributing, and the work environment was painfully in conflict with my core values–creativity; learning new and different things; freedom from unnecessary constraints.

I found a new assignment ASAP even though it meant leaving behind work that was a very short time ago truly engaging.

COUNTERPOINT: new leader transitions can be disastrous, shattering high levels of engagement and derailing productivity in the process.

PHASE TWO(c). A different greenfield project, a different manager who knew as little as I did in the initial phases. The start-up team was larger, the project was complex and task-intensive, and goals were more clearly defined than in 2(a). The six start-up team members possessed complementary strengths, and we all had specific tasks to manage. As a good deal of coordination was necessary among the independent tasks, the project manager was detail-oriented and hands-on, a.k.a. a micro-manager, out of necessity. But it was OK by me and the others.

While we may not have been highly engaged in the initial period, we got there quickly. All we needed was a little time to grow.

POINT: the same leadership style can either work well or lead to disengagement, depending on the circumstances. Even what would be perceived as micro-management may be appropriate, even for someone like me who has an intense aversion for unnecessary constraints. Hersey and Blanchard (situational leadership) had it right.

With all this introspection on my life in terms of engagement and disengagement, I think I’m getting closer to taking a shot at defining engagement—my original self-imposed challenge. But not yet. I do know it when I feel it or don’t feel it, though. Maybe that’s the definition…you know it when you feel it.

?

PHASE THREE: the Home Stretch.

A substantial challenge is emerging from this essay…how do you keep highly engaged individuals in the zone of high satisfaction, maximum contribution? Coming soon…what’s all the buzz about strengths-based leadership? Why not the good old “acceptable level of competency”?