by Judit Price
As a career advisor, it is important to have a good handle on all aspects of the employment scene in order inspire people to find a true career passion, and arm them with the tools to effectively plot a route to success.
But I must admit, dear readers, I see a growing workplace issue, a potentially serious issue that leaves me stumped. Let me use a sports analogy to make my point. Being of European origin, my sports are soccer, hockey and basketball. I have observed while the won-lost records between the best and worst teams can be huge, a close look at individual performances shows a much narrower set of differences. In fact, it is not at all uncommon for a team of less accomplished players to emerge victorious over a set of players whose individual records are superior. The point is also valid in business, where an organization of committed, dedicated people, working together and willing to take measured risk, can and frequently do overcome substantial barriers and emerge victorious over competitors who have bigger organizations, far more resources and substantially greater funding.
The reason is obvious. A cohesive team, where each member gives just a little bit more, where an open and trusting environment encourages risk, and where rewards are distributed in a fair and honest manner, can win. Conversely, a group that does not work well together, where each member only does what is expected, and where rewards are perceived as being based less on performance and more on other factors, is an organization in potential trouble. In my view, too many companies are designing organizations and instituting policies in the name of efficiency that actually place themselves at risk. And, when the organization is at risk, their employees are at risk.
So why is this happening? I think there are three factors. The first is telecommuting. There are certainly cost savings in office space and associated carrying costs. Availability of expert resources over long distances is enhanced. In addition, where firms invest in diverse geographies, the ability of employees throughout those geographies to share information efficiently is definitely a benefit. However, I believe there is also a downside.
In an organization, common purpose and mutual trust is important. When the team and the firm are distant from one another, and when team members are dispersed over a wide geography, something is definitely lost. This is especially true in a crisis. The best example of mutual trust and team spirit is in the military. I am not recommending that firms adopt a military structure, however. I am recommending a much harder look at the ideas of team cohesion and mutual trust as significant contributors to effectiveness, in which creative efficiency contributes to cost containment as well.
The second factor relates to the nature of today’s job. Under hiring is today’s norm for good business fiscal reasons. However, the need to meet deadlines with increasingly limited support represents a cost in effectiveness, morale and team cohesion and trust building. Firms are very dependent on the performance of their employees, that is well understood. What is less well understood is the importance of the interaction, the synergy, generated by groups of people who come together with a common vision, a set of goals and the determination to cooperatively work toward success.
The third factor is fear. Career counselors and HR professionals continually encounter people who genuinely like their work, but dislike their work environment. The pressure to produce in an increasingly hostile and resource-limited work place, often combined with the constant fear of downsizing, exacts a toll. Employees become risk-averse. They are reluctant to point out problems that should be addressed, for fear of being branded a troublemaker. Having been downsized once, and who hasn’t, the fear of being downsized again is palpable. As a result there is too much of a tendency to instinctively withdraw, to hold information rather than share it, and to build fences rather than teams.
These problems are real, that’s clear. What is not clear is how my profession should address them in a constructive fashion. Too often, we look to technology to solve problems. But I believe we have a growing organizational problem that can severely impact genuine productivity, and no clear solution. It is ironic that team compatibility is a major factor in the hiring process. Yet too often, this compatibility turns out to be do what you’re told and don’t complain. Too often, the team for which your compatibility is considered a critical success factor simply doesn’t exist in the real world.
So what does this mean for you? I think it means be especially careful. These days that’s not so easy when any port in a storm is deemed a good port. But look carefully where you are applying for a position. Do your best to find an employer in which you not only find meaningful work, but a culture and environment in which the organization’s success is a source of genuine pride.