Making a difference (MAD) matters. It means going home tired but energized. It means feeling good about the contributions made. In order to get there, we must Get Engaged to Make a Difference. We see regularly the impact a determined individual or organization can have on the world. Making a Difference usually involves willingness to sacrifice and a commitment to a sense of purpose that transcends the daily muddle of our lives. As much information as there is on what one might call "MAD Organizations," the more critical question is why do they make a difference? If we look at police officers, K-12 school teachers, fire fighters, military personnel, leaders of Scouting organizations or other youth groups, it clearly isn't for the money. Neither is it for recognition or public appreciation from those who have been served. The sacrifice offered is generally significantly greater than the economic reward received. Then why spend the time, effort and money involved? The reason is that they are engaged.
The principle of engagement is an important one. The dictionary defines engaged as being "greatly interested, committed, or being in gear." It is exactly the opposite of what is seen so often in organizations, i.e. employees who are going through the motions or putting in their time until the next paycheck or waiting for a better thing to come along. I would postulate that the absence of engagement in the workplace is more costly to organizations in terms of lost productivity than just about anything else.
By way of clarification, please note that engagement and empowerment are also very different creatures. The empowerment movement of the 1990s was seen by many employees as an attempt by management to trick them in to believing that their opinions mattered. Empowerment failed so often because in many cases the sharing of power was an illusion at best. Too often it was used as an excuse by management to avoid responsibility for problems in the organization or the marketplace. Even when a legitimate attempt was made to share authority so that employees could feel a greater sense of ownership, most of the time nothing really changed. Engagement on the other hand is action-oriented. By definition, it involves harnessing and utilizing energy. Once you engage the transmission of a car, you are ready to go.
Perhaps an example might serve to illustrate the difference between empowerment and engagement. Several years ago, I served in a senior leadership position at a large institution. I had become something of the "Mr. Fix-it" for the organization, and when problems developed with a key process I was tasked with finding a solution. As I studied the situation, it became clear that an individual in another department had the knowledge, perspective and experience to make sure the right fixes were done in the right way.
Because of my position in the organization it was a simple matter to bring this person onto the project. In fact, I wanted him to head the operational portion of the team I was putting together. In my mind, it was an easy sell. The existing process caused nothing but headaches for the individual in question and any fixes would make his job significantly more meaningful and enjoyable. Imagine my surprise when, rather than accept the chance to take control of the situation and completely redesign the process, he politely but firmly said "No thanks." I was dumbfounded and for years remained angered at the recollection of the event. Finally I realized that the fault was not his, but rather was mine. I had done everything one needs to do to "empower" him in making changes to the process, but I had never bothered to engage him. As a result the solutions identified by the rest of the project team were adequate but completely uninspired. While not a failure, I can't help but wonder how much opportunity was left on the table because of my inability to engage the heart and mind of another.
How does one apply the engagement principle and what does engagement look like? We see examples in the world of sports all the time. One powerful example is that of Glenn Cunningham, a middle distance runner from Kansas who set world records in the mile and 1500 meters during the 1930s. While his reputation as perhaps the greatest American miler of all time is interesting, how he got there is the real story about the impact of engagement. When he was 8 years old, Cunningham's legs were badly burned in a fire. The burns were so severe that the doctors considering amputating them and thought it likely that he would never be able to walk again. However, Cunningham was determined to walk and he forced himself to learn to do so, eventually becoming a world famous runner. From his story, we identify two key factors that must exist in order to become engaged. The first is a powerful belief in one's own potential, and secondly a passionate commitment to the task at hand.
The challenge for us is how to put those factors to work in an organizational context. First, as leaders it is imperative that we open the eyes of those we lead to their innate potential to do something amazing. We must find ways to communicate how much they have to offer and give them the means to do so. We must find a way to be more the coach and counselor and less the slave owner and taskmaster. We must recognize that the economic rewards of an engaged workforce far outstrip the value of mindless drones.
Secondly, we have to sell everyone on the value, importance and meaning of what we do. It doesn't matter whether we are software developers or work in a warehouse. It is our job to identify meaning and purpose that foster engagement in that which must be done. Then we must propagate engagement to others in the organization. It is a lesson I wish I had learned earlier in my career. It is a principle of significant leverage. It is our birthright to make a difference in the world around us. And it is the right thing to do.
Alan L. Austin is managing director of Efficio Consulting Group LLC in Sparks. Contact him at alan.austin@efficioconsultinggroup.com.
