"Tough" Leadership and Employee Engagement

I'm getting a little tired of hearing clients, prospective clients, and others chant the macho mantra, "Go beat them up on price." It doesn't make any difference who the "them" happens to be--we're just supposed to "get them."

I'm not aggravated because I don't care about price or a good deal, but because it too often falls off the tongue as a  "We'll get 'em" tactic instead of an intelligent strategy for dealing with difficult times. It also assumes that everything and everyone is a commodity and no longer a product or service that adds value. (Oh, what happened to the  'value-added' mantra?).

Whether at work or at home, it makes sense to look closely at how to intelligently cut costs. But according to an article by Bob Selden at Management Issues, there's another dynamic involved:

PriceWaterhouseCoopers reported that following the 2002 downturn, nearly 60 per cent of global CFOs conceded that the costs they were then currently cutting, would creep back into the business within two to three years.

And that's just the cost creep. What happens when the economy starts moving again – are these organisations flexible enough to re-hire, re-train and re-develop lost markets?

What might happen for instance, if the company leadership said "We need to reduce costs by 20 per cent - what are your suggestions for doing that?"

They just might find that employees come up with some stunning suggestions. Suppose that staff said "We can reduce costs 20 per cent by taking a reduction in pay - working four days a week instead of five".

I like Bob's closing question: Are leaders tough enough to take the risk to involve their people?

Speaking of mantras: We live in a Why Aren't Employees Engaged? atmosphere. Why not engage them now?

Comments

[David Zinger]

Steve:
If we are really tough, we are tough enough to work with innovative solutions and responses that are respectful and achieve mutual purpose for employees and employers. We are all "those people" according to someone else. We don't need to hold hands, hug each other, and sing songs together around the photocopy machine. We do need to connect and care and realize that work will always be both social and emotional and that these are not hindrances on the path to results...these are how we achieve results.
David

[Jo]

We with you on this Steve. Now what? Cannot we not get stories of firms who are acting innovatively and get the stories out over the web? Change the norm?

[Steve Roesler]

Hello, David,

Well put.

What better issue to rally 'round than "How can we keep going (together) given the current situation?"

[Steve Roesler]

Jo,

This could make for a lively discussion if readers became involved in the question. Hmm. Perhaps this is an upcoming post. . .

[Wally Bock]

I found a lot on this when I was researching my white paper, Managing Headcount in a Downturn (http://www.threestarleadership.com/downturn.htm ). Companies that seem to engage workers when times are good do the same when times are not so good. Toyota and Lincoln Electric expect people to contribute ideas. Nucor's teams self-manage in both situations. Success is shared in good times. Sacrifice is shared in bad times. It seems simple but it works.

Workers choose to be engaged with work teams where they can make a contribution to important work with people they like. The reason that they don't engage very often is that not many workplaces and teams offer those opportunities.

Recent blog post: Mass layoffs or not

[Miki]

Hi Steve, good thoughts, but if a culture that encourages that kind of participation isn't in place before the crisis it isn't gonna happen.

Additionally, asking for that input signals a boss who is secure within him/her self and, sadly, it doesn't seem as if there are a whole lot of those around.

Finally, too often Wall Street wants to see big cuts to prove that management is taking the problems seriously—intelligent savings and smart actions aren't enough. And we all know how brilliant Wall Street is regarding management, culture, savings and other minor details of business such as not having to file for bankruptcy.

Recent blog post: Lurkers: Resource Or Liability

[Steve Roesler]

Wally & Miki,

I'm doing one response because of the total dichotomy--and truth--in both.

Wally is citing research that reflects both the simplicity and effectiveness of total involvement in good times and bad. The results are there for all to see.

Miki, you note the importance of an ongoing culture of participation, which is what Wally's research is, indeed, affirming. Clearly, the companies that Wally mentions are led by people with the sense of personal security needed to trust other people with decisions affecting their lives and that of the organization.

Truth be told, a number of the companies with which I work are being forced to take abominable cuts now because they didn't manage responsibly for a number of years. Had they not tossed money at irresponsible capital projects and acquisitions, they wouldn't be in the shape they are in now. However: many of the knowledgeable and involved managers and employees cautioned against those moves and were ignored. Now, the very people who tried to stop the craziness are the ones losing their jobs.

This underscores your (Miki's) observation that a culture of genuine participation in the good times is necessary for solid problem-solving in the tough times.

What baffles me, as always: There has been enough behavioral and organizational research over the past 30 years to turn this stuff around. The same people who pay for expensive T&D programs and tout "People" in the annual report are often the same people who see it as "something we have to say" vs. "something we really ought to do."

I have a recurring dream in which management candidates are interviewed. In my dream the interviewer says, "Ooh, I see you have an MBA. But we want people who 'get it.' Do you 'get it?'"

Recent blog post: Stress, Fear, Action, Relief