School, cont.
February 12, 2008My most recent school module occurred at the HEC School of Management. The campus is in France, just outside of Paris in a little village near Versailles – Jouy en Josas. My class stays in an old chateau that’s been remodeled and has had classroom space added to accommodate modern learning needs. This module’s focus was the psycho-dynamics of change and how people’s background, personality and personal issues impact their role within a group and their ability to function within a group.
The first evening, we watched, “Twelve Angry Men”, a classic movie from the late 50’s. A slew of recognizable actors are in the movie – Henry Fonda, Jack Klugman and a handful of others for which I can’t recall names (you’d recognize them). The movie very clearly depicts individuals in a group setting and how perspectives change over a fairly short time. I won’t ruin the ending for you, but I would recommend you see the show – it’s a fascinating study in human nature and it’s entertaining as well.
From there, we moved to four days of instruction from professors that teach at HEC, Wharton, The London Business School and Oxford. All of the subject matter revolved around the issue of psycho-dynamics and its relationship to leading groups of people through change. I felt a bit like I was sitting in my college Sociology class…except this time around… I stayed awake and it made sense to me! We discussed various scenarios where personality differences seemingly stood in the way of accomplishing objectives. We examined methods to communicate in ways that created understanding instead of confusion. We debated the role of a change agent and what level of responsibility was reasonable to assume in addressing “difficult people”. We took a look in the mirror and asked, “when am I “difficult” and how does that impact my ability to intervene in a change situation?”
I’d summarize my learning from this module by saying this – at the end of the day, people do what they do for their personal reasons. All of us have some level of dysfunction in our lives and we have mechanisms in place to deal with those dysfunctional areas – we hide them, rationalize them, excuse them and even, sometimes, admit them and deal with them in the light of day.
Since we bring our “whole selves” to work, what does this mean for an organization? I believe companies must acknowledge that their employees are imperfect. Workplace cultures need to be places where fear is reduced and people are empowered to own their work. By no means does this imply that accountability is not important. Bad work needs to be addressed and the performance of the company must be the underlying goal of all work done for the company. Yet, in this environment of high performance, grace must be exercised. Part of Webster's definition of grace is, "to confer dignity or honor on". That's the definition of grace to which I'm referring.
How can a Reward and Recognition System (RRS) help create a "graceful" company? A RRS exists to encourage and promote the "right behaviors" that lead to corporate success. A well designed system will create recognition opportunities for every job description within the organization. Good training will ensure that front line management understands how to use the system and understands that their job is to promote "right behaviors" with a RRS as a tool. Effective communication will reach out to all employees and will create uniform understanding around corporate culture, defined right behaviors and what happens when individuals perform well. This creates fertile ground for an environment where everyone is looking for, and expecting to see, good things happening. We all want to be treated gracefully - a well designed Recognition and Reward System can help accomplish that for your company and your employees.
Regards,
Tom