An ancient virus has come back to life after lying dormant for at least 30,000 years, scientists...
We join spokes together in a wheel, but it is the emptiness of the center hole that makes the wagon move.
We shape clay into a pot, but it is the emptiness inside that holds whatever we want.
Why else would you work? http://www.csrwire.com/blog/posts/1239-etsy-s-recipe-for-purpose-creating-a-culture-around-mindfulness
Happiness is found only in little moments of inattention. - João Guimarães Rosa
Reading a great piece about the pros and cons of ‘fungineering’ in the workplace by Oliver Burkeman, I discovered some useful links and a wry sense of humor:
Countless self-help bloggers offer tips for generating cheer among the cubicles (“Buy donuts for everyone”; “Hang movie posters on your walls, with employees’ faces replacing those of the real movie stars”). It’s all shudderingly reminiscent of David Brent, Ricky Gervais’s wince-inducing character from the British version of “The Office”; or of the owner of the nuclear power plant in “The Simpsons” who considers distracting attention from the risk of lethal meltdowns by holding Funny Hat Days.
Lest my curmudgeonliness be mistaken for misanthropy, let’s be clear: There’s nothing wrong with happiness at work. Enjoyable jobs are surely preferable to boring or unpleasant ones; moreover, studies suggest that happy employees are more productive ones. But it doesn’t follow that the path to this desirable state of affairs is through deliberate efforts, on the part of managers, to try to generate fun. Indeed, there’s evidence that this approach — which has been labeled, suitably appallingly, “fungineering” — might have precisely the opposite effect, making people miserable and thus reaffirming one of the oldest observations about happiness: When you try too hard to obtain it, you’re almost guaranteed to fail.
A study by management experts at Penn State and other universities, published last month, found that while “fun” activities imposed by bosses might slow employee turnover, they can damage overall productivity. Another concluded that the fashionable tactic of “gamification” — turning work tasks into games, with scores and prizes — reduced the productivity and job satisfaction of those workers who didn’t approve the notion.
Worse still, the pressure to maintain a cheery facade in such workplaces can be stressful and exhausting in itself, a form of what the sociologist Arlie Russell Hochschild called “emotional labor.” In a 2011 study of workers at an Australian call center, where bosses championed the “3 Fs” (focus, fun and fulfillment), researchers found that many experienced the party atmosphere as a burden, not a boon. Pret a Manger, the British sandwich chain with branches in America, reportedly sends mystery shoppers to its cafes, withholding bonuses from insufficiently exuberant teams.
The ‘reportedly’ link above is to Paul Myerscough’s Short Cuts review (read my comments here), which is an indictment of Orwellian totalitarian be-happy-at-work-or-else at Pret-a-Manger.
Returning to Burkeman, what does he suggest as the right plan of attack for business?
Instead of striving to make work fun, managers should concentrate on creating the conditions in which a variety of personality types, from the excitable to the naturally downbeat, can flourish. That means giving employees as much autonomy as possible, and ensuring that people are treated evenhandedly.
Pleasure is elusive, at work and outside of it. The paradox of pleasure is that it must ensue from other activities, and not from direct pursuit, as Victor Frankl said. Happiness arises from our investment of self in something greater than self. An emergent property, like order arising from apparent chaos in living systems, an exaptation: for certainly, those who approach their work with only the goal of self-satisfaction are unlikely to become happy, or produce great work.
The miscast ‘pursuit of happiness’, then, must be manifested in our work lives as arising from engagement in our own work, and its consequence, its meaning. From this we miraculously can find happiness, but only out of the corner of our eyes, when it isn’t what we are looking for, at all.
A post I wrote at GigaOM Research about gamification is getting a lot of play on Twitter:
The need for a renewed push in the enterprise to reengage every person with their personal work, to find meaning and purpose, has never been greater. But adding badges to users’ profiles on whatever work management tool the company is on, showing that Bette is a super expert customer support staffer is the shallowest sort of employee recognition, like giving our coffee mugs to the folks with the lowest number of sick days.
We need to build deep culture, where the foundation of the new work ethos is on people’s relationship to their own work: gaining mastery in their work domain, acquiring higher levels of autonomy, and gaining the respect of coworkers. For that, we don’t need no stinking badges.
Deb Lavoy, Find Your (Corporate) Greatness
'Not Just Narrative, Purpose'
A solid piece about the motive force inherent in aligning a company’s narrative with its mission. From upper right, clockwise: Leaders, Niche, Lost, Marketers.
- Deb Lavoy, my E2Conf Keynote
Deb Lavoy was one of the best things about the recent Enterprise 2.0 conference.
I might quibble a bit with terminology, because I find that what is really needed for groups to succeed is meaning: the significance of an activity, and its import for others. Purpose emphasizes the end of some activity, which is fine as far as it goes. Meaning carries the additional nuance of shared understanding, which is primary for me.
I am looking forward to the Purpose Driven speaker series that Deb is running for Open Text, starting with Simon Sinek in NYC, July 12.
Dave Pollard sets up Peter Drucker’s SMART management discipline (management by Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Time-Based objectives), and then states — unequivocally — that it doesn’t work. And then he lays out what does:
The ideal organization is therefore not SMART, but self-organized, trusting (no need to measure results, just practice your craft and the results will inevitably be good), highly conversational, and ultimately collaborative (impossible in large organizations because performance is measured individually not collectively). It’s one where the non-performers are collectively identified by their peers and self-select out by sheer peer pressure. It’s one without hierarchy. It’s agile, resilient and improvisational, because it runs on principles, not rules, and because when issues arise they’re dealt with by the self-organized group immediately, not shelved until someone brings them to the attention of the ‘leaders’. It’s designed for complexity. It’s organic, natural.
In my experience, such an organizational model can be replicated, but it doesn’t scale. This is true for social and political organizations (transition communities), economic organizations (Natural Enterprises, permaculture and renewable energy co-ops), educational and health organizations (unschooling groups and preventive/self-managed health clinics). This is why our models of a better way to live and make a living need to be small, demonstrative, and replicable — it needs to be clear how to adapt these small sustainable successes to other locations and situations.
There are some good models out there, but they are complex, and it is not at all apparent how we can replicate them. So instead, we try to grow them, until they reach dysfunctional size. If we really want to make the world a better place, we need to stop trying to grow small successes and start finding ways to replicate them, not as cookie-cutter ‘franchises’ under a command-and-control central hierarchy, but as autonomous adaptations. Drucker couldn’t fathom complexity, nor can most of the so-called business ‘thinkers’ of our day. We need some new thinking, aimed at prosperity without growth, at evolutionary cellular replication and adaptation as the means of getting more of a good thing. Small model organizations that are somehow viral, so you can just take the seed, the set of principles, of one, and transplant it and adapt it to work elsewhere. Model enterprises, communities and cooperatives.
Dropping authoritarianism, and crafting businesses to run on principles rather than rules.
Drucker did make some contributions, though. He said that management was a necessary evil, and it should be as small as possible. But even at its best and smallest, industrial era management — which mostly is what we still have on Planet Earth — operates locally around soul-deadening command-and-control primitives, and the world of business in almost inextricably tied into a world economic culture dedicated to growth, expansion, and unsustainable practices.
To practice what Dave preaches we must look away from modern business culture, and find new patterns and paradigms that are based on social cognition: what we know works when people collaborate non-coercively, based on trust and shared goals. We have to turn away from the war and battle metaphors that dominate the zero-sum business community, and look to purpose instead of profits.
(via digital crumble)