Engagement

Not that type of Engagement! I'm speaking of the type of engagement you care about if you are concerned about winning the hearts and minds of your employees. Ask yourself this.... if instead of a company, your employer was a volunteer army... and the managers and executives were the sergeants and generals... would you continue to put your life on the line for them?

Let's face it, if you are reading this you are or at one time were (like me) a computer geek. Perhaps you are still living in your mom's basement, so the thought of giving your life for a cause is a bit extreme. But often the response I get when I ask folks to play along with the question is 'hell no!'.

While I am not an expert on engagement, I have been on quite a few teams that really had my energy pumping. If you are lucky, you've experienced it too. You can't wait to get to work and be with the team; you can't stop thinking about what you am going to do next, even when watching TV; you work late into the night because you enjoy the work; YOU'VE GOT THE ENGAGEMENT BUG.

America is a land of capitalism, and because of our heritage we have grown to believe that money is the ultimate motivator. Want to motivate a team? pay them more! But I say hogwash. Sure, if the workforce is underpaid or not paid equitably, engagement can not thrive. But if a company responds to disengagement with money, then we are little more than mercenaries for hire. Chances are you may become one of the many walking dead whom have ceased to function at optimal performance, ceased to grow; and are little more than automatons with money as their fuel source. Or, you become a contract killer. A specialist, who has become so good at their craft that they are both highly skilled, and highly paid. The problem with contract killers is that they have no loyalty, their loyalty goes to the highest bidder. Neither of these options bode well for a company wishing to foster high performing, highly engaged associates.

I think engagement boils down to 2 simple things.

#1 - Having a Purpose
Everyone has some base human need to belong to something that is bigger than them. Something they can contribute to and feel like what they did during their life mattered. In our business, this could manifest itself in our ability to create software that impacts people's lives. Even small impacts can make a difference (e.g. the ease of which a person's job now is, thanks to your new user interface).
Some of us wish to leave a lasting legacy with more than just software. Ideas, documents, books. All have the chance of creating lasting immortality, and creating purpose.
This isn't to say that all people are glory hounds wanting their names up in a flashing marque of lights and color. Let's face it, at our core many of us are introverted nerds. Many ideas or pieces of software have nameless, faceless creators. Take the mouse for example, and how it has made a major impact on the lives of countless individuals. But the inventory (Douglas Englebart) is relatively unknown.

#2 - Having a Say
We have a instinctual need to be listened to. I've said many times before that while I don't expect leadership to agree with my perspective, I expect them to listen. Not only listen, but understand. None of us like our voices to be ignored or discounted.
Some of our projects may make us feel like we are passengers trapped in a bus traveling the wrong direction, and our cries for help and pleas to turn around are ignored by a deaf bus driver. Whether we are wrong or right in our perception is irrelevant, to ensure an engaged workforce, leadership is obligated to listen to the perspective and understand the disparate point of view.

Conclusion
If your purpose is not handed to you on a silver platter, go searching for it. Don't stop searching until you find something you do that has an impact on someone's life. Ask leadership to provide their strategy, their vision. Try and find out what direction they play to take the bus. And attempt very strongly to understand their motivations.
If your voice is not being listened to, take a step back and try and determine if it may not be the manner in which you are communicating. There are techniques (perhaps a future blog entry) for forming questions to make them less threatening to 'the bus driver'. And be sure to give positive feedback to leaders who take the time to listen. If they have taken the time to listen, to understand, and still disagree... respect them by ceasing your cries and pleas, and becoming a respectful quiet bus passenger. Engagement isn't about getting your way all of the time.

The big carrot approach

I recieved some good feedback about my blog post concerning Leading from your heart.

Many agreed that the 'How can I help?' inverted model of leadership encourages the formation of a high performing team. Any leader on the team (including the Architect) not behaving in this manner casts a dark shadow on the team. A shadow under which strong teams don't flourish.

I thought the most interesting discussion surrounded how the 'big carrot approach' of influencing teams towards a shared goal or vision required just that.... a vision. And the sad truth about America was that we have become increasingly blinded by tactics. The evidence, as it was presented to me, was on the way in which the United States has been been led. From the failed vision of Iraq, to the inability to create strategy which prevented the current economic crisis. Ok, perhaps the feedback was from a liberal upset with the current administration... but politics aside, it raised an interesting point.

Our desire for instant results often makes us do some crazy tactical things. Influence using the carrot is problematic, as it takes more time, more energy, and may not even work. Quick results are had by simply beating the team into submission with a big stick. But by golly, the big stick approach works. And managers and architects alike use it to drive teams to implement products and create business value. In my heart though, I am not certain how sustainable an authoritarian style is. Team engagement would suffer, as top performers noticed instances of what would seem to them as illogical decision making and the discounting of sound advice.

Another interesting discussion I had was with someone who felt that the leader of the team was irrelevant. They cited instances of project managers who were incompetent, while a high performing team still was able to deliver successful projects. My thought here is that it stems from the difference between organizational and influential leadership. Organizational leaders are appointed to the position and are given authority over team member's paychecks and reviews, whereas influential leaders have no authority and obtain followers using the big carrot approach. The conclusion I came to was that while a strong team is critical to success, a team leader is equally critical. It is just a question on where the leader sits in the organization. It isn't a requirement that the leader have the team as direct reports, the leader could be the architect, or the tech lead, or a tester. Someone embedded in the team who has the courage to stand up and offer their opinions and vision for criticism. A vision that would define success and drive the team towards it.

Columbus Ohio Architects - Unite!

Those in the Columbus Ohio area should strongly consider showing up to the Columbus Architecture Users Group

http://www.colarc.org