Just last week the area I work for announced another reorganization.
Although, it was quickly pointed out this wasn't to be "like" the
company-wide reorganization we went through several years back, the
perception of reality of most employees is that it is. As a titled leader,
I'm now in the position of having to explain something that I don't
understand, wasn't a part of in any meaningful sense, and which I have
some fundamental problems with.
Our company has spent a great deal of money and rhetoric on the idea of
employee ownership and engagement. These terms are the new mantra on the
part of senior management...one hears them frequently...in business
briefings...in the company magazine...in team meetings. "We want you to be
engaged in our success, invest that discretionary effort in every project,
look at your part of this business as an owner of it," or so it goes.
So the inevitable question is (and believe I've heard variations of it now
from several on my team), "why do you tell me I'm an owner and ask me to
become engaged in this business as if it were my own, and then refuse me a
seat at the table when you decide such things as vision, strategy,
rewards,etc?"
The standard answer I get from senior management is that engagement to
that degree would be too messy...large groups of people rarely would
accomplish anything. But, then, how does the company reconcile its
position with the legitimate points above? There seems to be a huge
disconnect here.
Has anyone any thoughts on this? Are there examples that you can site
where these issues have been addressed?
Jim Ross
jross@centurytel.net
--"Century -New" <jross@centurytel.net>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.