Is there ever a time when our reactions don’t reflect our own perspectives on an issue? The whole wisdom behind the dictum: “Seek First to Understand” turns on our awareness of the near-impossibility of uncoupling our initial reactions from our personal standpoint.
Our experience with an issue, as well as our general world views, are always triggered by potentially contentious topics. We need to recognize this not only when we respond to a topic but also when we interpret how other people are responding.
Yes, that is what I kept telling myself last week, as I read all the comments and emails about my “Doubting Thomasina” post of last week, 3 Reasons Why Employee Engagement is a Scam.
The links between experience & worldview to the reactions showed up as three different types of responses to the post. Coincidentally , each type of response reflects one of the 3 Types of Employee Engagement Advocates.
Most of the responses on the blog as well as the emails I received with links and suggestions (thank you!) came from one particular type, yet all three were represented in one comment or another.
Given a brief explanation of each of the types, can you tell which one fits you best?
The 3 Types of Employee Engagement Advocates are:
- The Pollyadam1 / Pollyanna
- The Transactionalist, and
- The Tempered Radical
The Pollyadam / Pollyanna
The Pollyadam believes in the value of employees’ engagement to each individual employee. S/he expects that offering more meaning and fulfillment to the individual in exchange for more productive effort from that individual has no inherent conflicts. It’s a win-won for both employees and employer.
The Pollyadam has no concern about whether the employer organization really intends for employees to be fulfilled, or whether it’s the employees or the organization who has the power to define fulfillment. S/he expects that most business are ‘good’, and where organizations aren’t good there are protective limits to their badness. There is no concern that the organization may gain proportionally more than the employees, or that any lopsidedness might be undesirable.
The Pollyadam just won’t look at the downsides or complications of Employee Engagement. Thus, s/he dismisses concerns about Employee Engagement as something prompted by an incomplete understanding of how capitalism works, or by garden-variety cynicism.
The Transactionalist
The Transactionalist sees Employee Engagement as the latest in a long line of superficially attractive, potentially profitable organizational programs.
If the Transactionalist is a manager, Employee Engagement looks like a great program to espouse—you get more productivity and more employee ‘satisfaction’ along with the added benefit of looking like an inspiring leader and all-around good guy. Talk about a win-win win!
If the Transactionalist is a consultant, Employee Engagement looks like a program that can be sold to management on the basis of productivity promises, and to employees as a sign that the organization cares – an easy win-win.
Whether a manager or a consultant, The Transactionalist recognizes that Employee Engagement is not something that can easy to implement or quick to achieve. Employee Engagement works well enough to show results and is a continuously moving target, so it’s a profitable, long term gig.
The Transactionalist doesn’t care about potential conflicts for the employees and the organization. The Transactionalist may or may not see the potential downsides for employees, and s/he may or may not see how Employee Engagement can be used in an exploitative way. This is often (although not always) because The Transactionlist is ultimately on the side of the employer – and understands Employee Engagement as something that the organization does ‘for’ employees in the service of overall profitability.
The Transactionalist and the Pollyadam are codependent partners in crime. Working together, they make it possible for employees to be misled (and disappointed) while employing organizations take over more and more of the employees’ being. Working together, they make real change and authentic engagement impossible.
The Tempered Radical
Enter The Tempered Radical. The Tempered Radical sees not only the inspiring promise of Employee Engagement for both employees and organizations but also the reality of poorly executed, cynically motivated initiatives.
The Tempered Radical recognizes that Employee Engagement is the latest iteration of a long line of humanistic workplace programs intended to mitigate– or maybe even erase– the tensions between employee interests and employers’ interests. S/he sees and takes aim at the power imbalances that keep these tensions hidden.
The Tempered Radical has an ulterior motive. S/he has a different understanding of what work organizations might become, and wants to use our current interest in Employee Engagement as a vehicle for transforming the world of work, and the relationship between work and the rest of life. The ultimate goal of a Tempered Radical is not just an engaged workforce that finds meaning in work, or a company made productive through inspired effort, but a work/business environment that leads to flourishing across economic, social, and personal systems.
The Tempered Radical works to motivate managers and employees (and even shareholders) towards a different understanding, speaking about the vision without sounding like a naïf. The Tempered Radical also works to keep ‘business realities’ salient, so that employee desires, organizational desires and stakeholder needs are pursued in ways that keep the organization healthy. Thus, The Tempered Radical embraces efforts to identify, clarify and prompt conversation about conflicts and tensions that are ‘built in’ to most Employee Engagement programs.
S/he still understands that there is a long way to go before this vision can be realized, or even understood, by a majority of businesses, and The Tempered Radical is in it for the long haul.
As Reflected in the Comments
While I was surprised by the amount of response to 3 Reasons Why Employee Engagement is a Scam, I was delighted by how the comments were dominated by Employee Engagement Advocates of The Tempered Radical type. Yes, there were a few Pollyadams and one or two certified Transactionalists who commented publicly or shared their views with me backstage, but it was heartening to see just how many readers were ready to engage directly with the concerns I raised.
Although a person’s type has a strong influence on their response, context is important too. Often, I find that the Pollyanna in me comes out strong when I’m confronted by a Transactionalist. Similarly, when I’m in a room of Pollyannas I seek out the Transactionalist just to keep things anchored in reality. But, almost always when I’m with a Tempered Radical (especially one who’s more radical than tempered), I feel inspired.
How about you?
Have you figured out which type you are?
Even more important, have you figured out which type of Employee Engagement Advocate you want to be?
See Also:3 Reasons Why Employee Engagement is a Scam
Image: “This is so me” from giveawayboy. With a shout-out to JoLo, who subscribes to both.
1 Pollyadam is a term I coined, in the spirit of semantic akido, both to flag and resist the tendency to see naivete as a predominantly ‘female’ trait.