This is the presentation of a paper by Jane Trinder, Jankowicz and Kakabadse: about the ability to engage and engagement from a personal (Jane is presenting) point of view. Jane is talking about her search for the answer from august institutions who she felt ought, or may, have some sort of answer regarding how leaders can/should engage. So, not finding it, Jane stepped out of organisational life and is in the process of studying for a PhD, investigating this topic. Jane's premise is that people would rather be involved in being engaged than not: as engagement is often linked to customer satisfaction, employee satisfaction, improved organisational performance.
Some typical solutions to engagement are: vision, leadership, development, tools, praise, stakeholder communication, communication skills, doing what you're best at. But the contexts in which these factors operate, the following map onto the previous. vision is short term; who is your role model; which deckchairs are being shuffled; there's increasing bureaucracy; and there are espoused theories in distinction to theories in action. Jane's focus today is on psychology and the psychologistic aspects of engagement: i.e. commitment, job involvement and job satisfaction. These three boil down to the values set and individual beliefs and attitudes; affective relationships, or emotional buy-in to the job. Can engagement be viewed solely as a 'choice'? That engagement has meaning for me, that I feel safe and that the leader is available to me and how available I am to my job. But what is it like when you are engaged? One is attentive, connected to others, integrated with the overall process and wanting to participate, and one is focused: these are what constitute presence.
But Jane's point is: we're not doing it, are we! She draws a distinction between 'conventional' and 'post conventional' to illustrate a progression towards this papers conclusion about what constitutes a better form of engagement. A post conventional leader is, variously: motivational; transformational; networked; legacy plus results; constant and cyclical; and using conflict to enable transformation. It's a shame that Jane is not leaving, deliberately she says, time for questions at the end of this presentation. Does this reveal 'conventionalness' in her approach? ...But, it turns out she did have 3 minutes for questions and fielded them.
Some typical solutions to engagement are: vision, leadership, development, tools, praise, stakeholder communication, communication skills, doing what you're best at. But the contexts in which these factors operate, the following map onto the previous. vision is short term; who is your role model; which deckchairs are being shuffled; there's increasing bureaucracy; and there are espoused theories in distinction to theories in action. Jane's focus today is on psychology and the psychologistic aspects of engagement: i.e. commitment, job involvement and job satisfaction. These three boil down to the values set and individual beliefs and attitudes; affective relationships, or emotional buy-in to the job. Can engagement be viewed solely as a 'choice'? That engagement has meaning for me, that I feel safe and that the leader is available to me and how available I am to my job. But what is it like when you are engaged? One is attentive, connected to others, integrated with the overall process and wanting to participate, and one is focused: these are what constitute presence.
But Jane's point is: we're not doing it, are we! She draws a distinction between 'conventional' and 'post conventional' to illustrate a progression towards this papers conclusion about what constitutes a better form of engagement. A post conventional leader is, variously: motivational; transformational; networked; legacy plus results; constant and cyclical; and using conflict to enable transformation. It's a shame that Jane is not leaving, deliberately she says, time for questions at the end of this presentation. Does this reveal 'conventionalness' in her approach? ...But, it turns out she did have 3 minutes for questions and fielded them.
No comments:
Post a Comment