CHAPTER 9
Shift Employees from Disengagement to Active Engagement
Max was the chief information officer for a national financial company. When we first heard from him, his Gallup employee engagement scores showed two actively engaged employees to every one actively disengaged employee. Not good. A favorable score is a ratio of twelve actively engaged to one actively disengaged. Clearly, Max had a problem.
Larry, his VP of human resources, told us the story of when Max first got the news and made the decision to call us. Here’s what happened:
Max was furious about the findings. “Two to one! Really? That’s horrible!”
Larry, who had coordinated the survey, was responsible for giving Max honest feedback. “Look, it is bad, really bad. And frankly, that’s the overall organization. Your executive team’s results may be even worse.”
Max stood up. “My team works hard. No way are they that disengaged!” He wasn’t ready to entertain the possibility that the root of the problem was at the top.
Larry watched quietly.
Max paced back and forth behind his desk. “Hell, we’re in the process of changing an entire technology culture at this company. I don’t have time to deal with this issue right now. I’m doing my best to get employees to commit to new IT systems and let go of the legacy ones. That’s really what we need to be focused on, not this people stuff!”
Larry spoke up. “Yes, you’re making a big business shift, and I’m sure that’s contributing to the engagement issue, but I’ve been talking to you about this for more than a year now.” Larry paused and looked Max in the eye. “Max, there are some unspoken issues on your team. You can keep looking further down the organization, but I’m not sure the engagement problem will be solved until you deal with your own team’s discontent.” Larry leaned back, his body stiff, bracing for Max’s reaction.
Max looked down, shaking his head. “Damn it, Larry,” he said, dejected. “I hate to admit it, but you may be right.”
To Max’s credit, he took Larry’s advice to work on his team. When we got the call from Max, he’d already primed the pump with his team to get some straight goods about the current issues. What he learned was unsettling. Three of his ten direct reports were quite clear that their issues were with Stan, Max’s genius IT right-hand man.
Stan had been working for Max for fifteen years, ten of those within the current organization. Stan really was a genius, but he also had a forceful, arrogant leadership style. Still, Max couldn’t believe that at this level of the organization, leadership style should be a serious problem. While he’d been working with Stan to soften his approach with the team, the truth was Max valued Stan’s strong personality.
THE INTERVENTION
Our standard practice is to start with the leader or start with the team. In this case we started with the team in a two-day off-site and planned for a longer-term approach after those initial two days. Max’s objectives during that first session were clear: he wanted this off-site to help his team deal more directly with Stan and other aggressive leaders, and he planned to focus his people on the company’s strategic shift.
We agreed with Max that strong personality types shouldn’t be a reason for breakdowns in communication, and we assured him the strategic discussion would be a major focus of the two days. We also let Max know we weren’t convinced Stan was the main issue, or that his team’s passive style was at fault.
Max opened the first day by making it clear he wanted everyone’s input and the intention was to operate as a team. If there were issues with his leadership, he wanted that on the table.
The first day started out well—a bit too well. Some folks clearly stayed quiet as Stan dominated the discussion of strategy. It wasn’t until the late afternoon that things finally heated up. We dove into some of the key issues regarding the lack of adoption of the new cloud system.
Stan jumped in. “This isn’t a systems issue,” he said, his tone assertive. “It’s a training problem.”
“Stan, I don’t think so,” Colin, one of the newer members of the leadership team, replied. “Your department didn’t take enough time to gather the needs of a few of the business units. I think if we step back and deal with some of these smaller but unique requirements from the business units, we’ll have much more buy-in across the company.”
“Damn it, this isn’t my team’s problem!” Stan shot back. He turned saying, “Max, you know we’ve spent hours listening to all the requests, and frankly, most of that was a waste of time!”
“Stan, bring it down a notch,” Max said. “I get that this is a difficult conversation, but we want to keep this conversation happening.” He turned, saying, “Colin, look, I appreciate that people are upset with not getting everything they want, but Stan has a point. His people can’t answer to everything. I’m not sure I agree with your concerns.”
Colin went quiet. Silence hung in the room for several moments.
Susan interjected. “Colin, what’s up? You had a point, and now you’re just letting it go because Max doesn’t agree?”
Colin sounded defeated. “Look, it’s just not worth it.”
“What’s really bugging you, Colin?” she asked.
Colin paused, then steeled his resolve. “Well, here’s the thing. Whenever one of us disagrees with Stan, it doesn’t take long for Max to step in and agree with Stan. I don’t really like that Stan gets upset, but what’s even harder is that the alignment between Max and Stan is so tight that this (he made a wide circle with his hand, gesturing toward the others in the room) isn’t a team. Those two are the team.” He waved his hand in the direction of Max and Stan.
“Wait a minute,” Max jumped in.
Susan interrupted. “Max, I’m going to stop you for a moment. This seems like a pretty honest and vulnerable statement from Colin. Are you sure you want to cut him off?”
Max stopped. There was a long pause. He finally spoke to Colin. “So, you think I always take Stan’s side?”
Silence again. Everyone remained quiet, waiting for Colin’s reply.
Finally, he responded, “Yes. I know Stan is great at what he does, but it’d be nice to be heard and maybe get a moment of consideration.” Colin’s statement was strong, but he delivered it levelly.
Max seemed to be listening, but the silence continued. Tension filled the room until Max said tersely, “I’m going to have to think on that.”
Day one ended in discomfort.
THE TURNING POINT
First thing the next morning, Max stood up and addressed the team. “Look, I’ve been giving this a lot of thought. What you need to know is that I have a long history with Stan. I also know I like the way he thinks, and that he takes action.” Stan took a breath and looked up, relieved.
“However,” Max continued, “I think this is a problem. Colin, I appreciate your candor. I want you and anyone else on the team to speak up and tell me when I’m shutting down alternative ideas or teamwork because of a close working relationship with Stan. I also want to say this is not Stan’s problem. I know some issues have come up for folks working with Stan, but now I’m wondering if I am the bigger issue.”
Suddenly, the door was open to the tough but necessary conversation. Team members proceeded to give Max direct and challenging feedback. They agreed that a major piece of the team issue was more related to Max’s alignment than Stan’s aggressive style. Each person agreed to be more direct and responsible in dealing with Stan, if Max agreed to let them call him out when he so quickly aligned with Stan and stopped ongoing dialogue.
For the remainder of the off-site, the team enjoyed healthy dialogue about getting full buy-in and support for the company’s cultural shift.
Toward the end of day two, the team gave Stan direct feedback whenever he would either start bullying an employee or try to recruit Max to his position. Stan seemed to take it in. We knew the team was taking a critical step forward. Members of the team thought their work was done.
But it wasn’t that simple. We returned for a tune-up a month later and witnessed another critical conversation. This time, it was Max who made it clear that his first priority was the team, and he didn’t think Stan had that same intention. Stan didn’t take this well.
Within the next two months, Stan moved on to a new position in another large company. It wasn’t easy for Max to lose Stan, but we continued to work with the team over the next year. They became fully engaged and creative in implementing the new strategy. On a coaching call Max told us, “To tell you the truth, Stan was so brilliant I had my doubts we’d be as good without him. But wow! Having an entire team operating on all cylinders has exponentially improved our performance. I never thought it was possible. I am blown away!”
A year later, with the team fully engaged and the culture shifting, the question still remained: How would this change organizational engagement levels? The annual Gallup engagement scores one year later were better: five actively engaged employees to one actively disengaged. It still wasn’t up to twelve-to-one industry standards, but it was headed in the right direction.
We continued to work with the team and company for the next two years. When we last spoke, the organization’s Gallup engagement scores had skyrocketed to seventeen actively engaged employees to one actively disengaged! Using conflict rather than fighting not only provided the needed energy to build a solid leadership team for the organization, but also supplied the critical shift to turn around organizational engagement.
A LEADER’S CHOICE
Max had to make some tough choices.
Team transformation comes out of fire, from the aftermath of a crisis, a blow up, or a leader who has encountered a dark night of the soul.
Max needed to face his own dark night of the soul and recognize how his relationship with Stan and his behaviors with the team limited the energy and success of the team.
He also needed to give his team permission to be messy and put the real issues on the table.
Too often a leader unwittingly defuses the tension by:
- Determining the right answer, primarily through logic, reason, and efficiency.
- Cutting off discussion and taking things off-line when people get too emotional.
- Managing strong personalities through one-on-one conversations.
- Listening to the loudest or the favorite voice, the one whose thoughts are usually the same as the leader’s.
- Declaring oneself as the leader and forcing a direction.
Max had spent months doing just that without realizing the impact it had on the team.
His team needed an environment in which they could all wrestle, declare, inquire, make mistakes, listen, and learn. Sometimes the team needs to safely explode so they can transform from the ashes. When a team has this contained space within which to engage, and when the explosion is invited rather than defused, an alchemical process creates innovation.
We’ll dive more deeply into this as we move into the ME. But let’s recap with a few key things Max did really well to shift from opting out to opting in, things you can do to be a better leader!
When team transformation is the goal, here’s how a leader can opt in:
- Be human and acknowledge conflict. You are the model. If you acknowledge when you’re uncomfortable in the tension and ambiguity, others learn they’re not alone.
- Don’t go for the quick fix. The drive for efficiency is born from the discomfort of not having the answer or a fear of looking bad.
- Get out of the right-wrong trap. Yes, we all want to be right, but do you want to be right more than you want to succeed?
- Check for conflict. If you see people disengage, check it out. Encourage people to speak up, to have different opinions, and to hang in for the long haul.
- Listen to the naysayer with interested curiosity. Even when you think a team member is a pain in the butt, step into his shoes and see the world from his point of view. You might be surprised what you find when you get out of your own way.
What have you got to lose? Similar to Max, you might be surprised by the big leap your team makes when you take the risk, let them get messy, and use the conflict to transform.
Read on to learn how you, personally, can help transform your team.