A question for bosses and organizations.
How To Create A Workplace That Actually Inspires Passion
John Hagel III and John Seely Brown
July 23, 2020
https://hbr.org/2020/07/how-to-create-a-workplace-that-actually-inspires-passion
I’m Busy, Why Do I Care?: There is plenty of glittering advice that promises to catapult us and our work into the next realm of performance. Before we embrace this advice, we should be sure that we and our organizations are ready for it.
Main section: 950 words (4-5 minutes)
Bosses and leaders have been conditioned to worry about whether or not their workers are sufficiently engaged, but what if that was simply an introductory stage leading to greater productivity and stellar outcomes?
That, broadly, is the idea John Hagel (not to be confused with this fellow) and John Seely Brown put forward in their recent Harvard Business Review article. Hagel and Brown are prolific thought leaders on business and technology. Both came from Silicon Valley, which still heavily influences their thinking.
Their basic idea is that despite spending (literal) billions on engagement and education, American organizations still largely fail to engage, much less excite, their work forces. Their case is laid out in an article they wrote in 2017:
”...[E]ngagement remains low, at 34 percent. In fact, in a recent survey of US workers, only 35 percent had the disposition to seek out challenges; even among engaged employees, only 38 percent reported seeking challenges.
An even smaller number, 13 percent, have what we call “the passion of the explorer,” meaning not only do they seek out difficult challenges—they are committed to making a significant impact and regularly connect with others to gain the skills and insights to do so.”
This extends to leadership as well. Hagel and Brown note “64 percent of all surveyed workers, including half of executives and senior management, [are] neither passionate nor engaged.” The consequences of this aren’t hard to imagine, and none of them are particularly good.
Ignite The ‘Passion of the Explorer’’
In their 2020 article, Hagel and Brown define the passion they’re looking for in terms of one commitment and two personality traits. These are
First, “a long-term commitment to increasing one’s impact in a particular domain” such as a business sector or profession;
Second, a propensity to seek out new challenges for the learning opportunities they offer, and;
Third, a focus on disciplined networking--seeking out others who can help with the challenges.
They challenge organizations to create systems that encourage innovation and “supporting connection among workers.” Examples include asking teams powerful questions. This builds focus beyond the day-to-day challenges which can blind participants to larger shifts in their environments. Beyond this, they encourage focusing on the “trajectory” of change through carefully-established goals.
If this sounds a bit vague, it is -- and it’s where Hagel and Brown may leave “ordinary” organizations behind.
Who Is This Advice For?
This model makes sense for individuals and organizations who are already best able to compete. For leaders in forward-thinking, flexible organizations cultivating the “passion of the explorer” is a fantastic idea. (This 2013 article explains why.)
Let’s look at what Hagel and Brown see as the differences between “engaged” and “explorer” employees:
Take motivation as an example. Hagel notes on his blog, as part of a description of predatory institutional behavior at the root of the gig economy:
...[A]necdotally I am seeing a growing number of workers leaving large institutions and striking out on their own because they are frustrated with the worker experience in large institutions. They’re driven by a desire to learn faster.
Shifting to primarily intrinsic sources of satisfaction is a great aspiration. For knowledge workers and those who can make a living doing something remotely, this makes sense and is feasible.
If you don’t fall into those categories, the HBR article offers little advice. That’s too bad. The underlying vision--that is, looking past the awful phrasing on the chart--is infused with a passion for unlocking human potential.
Advice For The Rest Of Us
Per Hagel and Brown, a (notional) “median organization” is struggling to get more than about a third of its work force over an already low bar for engagement. How do we expect it do better for the less than an eighth of people who meet the definition of “explorer”?
We don’t.
The reason is the difference between crawling, walking and running. “Runner” organizations already attract, develop and retain explorers. They don’t need help. For them, reading the article is probably confirming what they already know or do. Then there are zombie organizations: they can barely crawl. Most of these probably can’t be helped.
So the addressable market for this idea are organizations in the middle. They’re not Google or NASA. Working for one of them also isn’t the equivalent of having a rusty bear trap around your ankle. The idea of being able to go from mundane to excellent would be incredibly appealing to them.
So, why not jump into making the explorer aspiration reality?
Back to Basics
Not so fast.
Hagel and Brown are speaking to potential world-class 800m competitors--that is, very good, very specialized, and pretty rare.
Before trying to run at this level, the more “normal” organizations need to nail down crawling and walking. Their leaders and managers need to be putting energy into fixing the more fundamental issues--like engagement. Get to that, and then worry about trading it in for a shiner, abstract vision.
There really is no “hack” for this -- your organization has the precursors or it doesn’t. And if it doesn’t, then trying to leapfrog to the “Explorer” stage won’t work. There are probably parts of your organization that are ready, and that’s where to start. But for widespread adoption, there must be widespread readiness.
None of the advice Hagel and Brown offer is bad, and they’re constrained by the short length of the article. But it’s really advice for a relatively narrow slice of people and organizations. It’s too bad this isn’t more clear.