I’m an avid reader of Harvard Business review. Most of the time, I skip articles that are not meaningful to me. The ones I decide to read are almost always quite insightful. Then again, sometimes I stumble on something that is so ridiculous it’s quite funny. The following is one of the latter.
Why does a job have to be meaningful and fulfilling? Isn’t it enough that work is simply worthwhile – which is to say worth the employee’s time considering his or her circumstances? A former student to mine sells a remedy for irritable bowel syndrome, a job she doesn’t find particularly meaningful. But she dies believe that for someone with her skills, experience, priorities, and goals, selling this product for this company is certainly worthwhile. Consequently she believes that she has a good job. ((Kersten, E.L., February 2006. “Why They Call it Work” from “The HBR List – Breakthrough Ideas for 2006.” Harvard Business Review. Pg 25, 26.))
Understanding that E.L. Kersten is one of the founders of www.Despair.com one would understand why s/he has this view of the working world. However, I would be a small fortune that Kersten is actually a very engaged employee. I would be that s/he has great fun in his/er job, and that s/he is able to express great creativity, control and etc. in the job.
Kersten’s example above is a good one. If I were selling irritable bowel syndrome drugs, I also would be disengaged. I might be satisfied, but certainly not engaged. And the truth of the matter is that we don’t necessarily care if 100% of our employees are engaged. We simply want most of them doing a great job, and be satisfied with their current station in the workplace. What we don’t want is a bunch of dissatisfied employees running around hurting our brand and the perceptions of other employees.
The employees we care to engage are those that are higher producers, thinkers, creators, and leaders. While engagement at all levels will lead to greater creativity throughout the organization, engagement at the senior levels leads to proportionally greater increases in value.
Now I’m not saying that IBS salespeople and the like are unimportant. Engaging those employees in their work is a desirable thing to do. But my take on Kersten’s article is that you must be a realist and focus your engagement energy where it counts the most.
5 responses to “HBR – Why Work Should Not Be Engaging”
Mmm I can’t decide whether I agree or not. Firstly, I do agree that leaders MUST be engaged. If they are engaged then they will engage others through clarity of vision and a passion/will to win. As for ignoring others, I can see the point but there is a danger with this…often great people are just not engaged because they do not have clear objectives, don’t understand how they can add value. If you take this approach you may be ignoring some great talent. Before you ignore the disengaged employees you need to understand the reason that they are feeling that way. Often the problem is with the manager not the individual…ignoring could lead you to ignore the real issue!
Any thoughts?
Anna:
I love a little disagreement. Unfortunately I’m not sure we’re there. You perhaps have expressed the thought a bit better than I did. I’m not sure we want to “ignore” anyone. But we certainly should have a good idea of priority – who MUST be engaged, and who we would like to engage (the rest). Ignoring is probably too strong a word.
Certainly you want to make appropriate attempts to engage your entire workforce. Your talent management processes and your rewards processes should not feel the effects of any sort of prioritization of senior talent versus other talent. (prioritization is another word I hate using here).
Anna: I love a great debate, but unfortuantely I think I agree with you.
Kinda makes me wonder if Kersten punk’d HBR in a way.
It is still best to make the job engaging and meaningful so that they will be happy. However, there are some people that will work for just money and money alone. They are motivated by money, and take any job that will give them the opportunity to make alot of money. I personally prefer a job that not only pays well, but also provides me with the freedom to make decisions on how to do my job, as well as feedback on how well I am doing.
My philosophy has always been:
Do what you love
Stick with it
If you do, you’ll get really good at it (you have a passion for it afterall)
You will be recognized for your abilities (the money will come)
By definition, you will be engaged
So this idea presented here is the total antithesis to my belief. If you don’t like what you do, and you aren’t engaged you are destined for mediocrity at best, and more likely you will be tagged as an underperformer. Nothing good will come of this. You will float from job to job never really finding a fit.
Come to think of it, I guess corporate America is full of these people, and business moves on.
The reality is that it takes all kinds to make the world go ’round, and one person’s passion is another’s boredom. Thank goodness for that; we have to fill the actuarial positions somehow!
But since everyone is different, and gets fulfillment in their own way, I do believe that doing what you love is a possibility for most people out there.