Last week I referred to research, carried our by Ashridge Business School, that concluded that many CEOs fail to connect with the importance of engagement within their organisations. The report suggested that leaders may not be open to feedback or sharing power, and often struggle to see the impact of disengagement on the bottom line.
I went on to explain why we believe that one of the most recognizable differences between truly authentic charismatic leaders, and their less charismatic counterparts is the focus and attention that they put on ensuring that the positive energy within their organisations , or teams, remains high. Great leaders understand that no matter how infatiguable it is, no one person’s energy can compare with the energy that is generated and multiplied by a team of people all committed to a collective vision and pulling in the same direction. I made the point that the reason why CEOs absolutely have to engage with engagement is because if just one person within an organisation starts pulling in a different direction, the collective energy is diminished and dulled.
This week I read with interest an article by Susanne Jacobs in CIPD Magazine that makes this same point about energy and engagement but from a slightly different perpective by asking ‘’how inclusive is your team?” The article explains that the unconscious mind needs to know that we are safe both psychologically and physically, because the opposite is a threat to our well-being. It goes on to state that safety comes from trust – in others and in our environment. If we perceive even the smallest crack in trust our minds take action in order to manage a potential threat to our survival. This reaction invokes the ‘fight or flight’ response, which amongst other physiological effects, crucially, removes fuel from the cognitive, thinking part of our brain, severely compromising our performance capacity.
We already know that a lack of engagement, or inclusion may not immediately show up in Staff Satisfaction Surveys. I would go as far as to say that it is widely held belief amongst many of the HR professionals that I speak to regularly that the more disengaged and excluded employees feel, the more likely they are to keep their head’s down and say nothing. Similarly if we follow Susanne Jacobs point, employees in a survival mindset are not immediately going to make themselves visible to their CEO or senior leadership team by complaining or leaving. The impact of their disenchantment will more typically be felt by the compromised performance capacity that we associate with the survival mindset.
Evolutionary psychologists saw that our need for trust in others came from living in small communities. Human offspring take many years before they are independent and attachment to others meant survival. Furthermore, our need to trust our tribe was paramount in order to remain a part. We still have a powerful instinctive need to belong and connect to others, and reducing the risk of possible exclusion that our unconscious minds will interpret as a significant danger. Our tribes in the workplace are our teams and our need to belong remains paramount to our perceived safety. As such, we protect our team and our place. If this is not positively supported it can give rise to the relationship damaging, silo mentality so often seen across departments and functions.
If leaders and departments within organisations have been in survival mode for a period of time, or if the CEO himself/herself has become drawn into a cost- cutting, managing the bottom line, survival first mindset, they may not be able to recognize the degree in which a climate of fear has eaten away at a previously high performance culture. And when the economy picks up, and it’s time to ‘switch onto growth’ again, some organisations may find that they have forgotten how to do that.
“ We are driven by five genetic needs; survival, love and belonging, power, freedom and fun”
William Glasser
