There seems to be a pretty consistent message that traditional organisational structures are passe and that it does not make any kind of sense to leave so much power in the hands of a handful of people at the “top of the pyramid.” While there appear to be some people who are prepared to stand up and attack the HR profession, the one point that is completely overlooked in this whole engagement issue is executive remuneration. This is the Marie-Antoinette issue of “let them eat cake” that will ultimately sabotage any effort to create employee engagement. Only yesterday on “The World at One” on BBC Radio 4 they reported that Mark Thompson, as Director-General earned 60 times more than the basic analyst/reporter. Yet without those people the BBC would not be able to function. So what justification can there be for such a discrepancy?

And of course the differential is probably greater in other organisations. The issue here though, as was repeatedly emphasised in justifying the executive pay during yesterday’s programme, is that they have to pay those kind of salaries to attract and retain the top talent. Yet there can be few if any executives whose contribution to their business warrants such vast premiums.

Of course this is the variation of the argument that we have to accept payment of astronomic bonuses to bankers because otherwise there will be a talent drain and they will go elsewhere. Excuse me, but surely the kind of “talent” that oversees the kind of massive failure that we recently witnessed is not the kind of talent we want? It beggars belief that they are entitled to such rewards when in any other walk of life, say if they had been driving a car, they would be in court for criminal negligence! Instead the people, (or an uncomfortably large proportion of them) who served them and enabled them to receive such rewards lose their jobs and their standard of living while the impact for them is barely noticeable. This is the “conventional wisdom” that has to change if we are serious about engagement.

It is also disappointing that so much of the discussion is academic and highlights the flaws in the system, without offering effective solutions for rectifying them. The periennial debate about management vs leadership is getting boring. Management is about getting a job done/meeting an objective – it is about use of resources. Leadership is about holding fixed, durable values and inspiring behaviour that adapts to changing circumstances WITHOUT losing those core values – its about people. When we recognise this, we move beyond seeing humans as a “resource” and we automatically start to empower them and let them become the “best they can be.” This is what fulfils and this is what empowers engagement.

So, how can we engender this. Well, for starters, I would champion my proposition for valuing people and putting them on the balance sheet. While this may appear paradoxical in so far as it aligns people with other resources, it also acts as a catalyst and:
a) Reshapes behaviour and hence the manager/worker relationship.
b) Through the balancing entry of “human capital”, allows that reserve to become part of owner’s equity and thereby, for the cost of a single journal entry, allows the employees to become co-owners of the business, tothe equivalent of their personal asset value. This innovation creates employee ownership in any organisation and thus overcomes the handicap of not being listed. It also removes the bureaucratic and legal hassle associated with traditional employee share ownership plans, while delivering exactly the same benefits, viz employees who act like owners – the highest level of engagement there is.
c) Enables profit sharing through a “labour dividend.” This replaces the traditional incentive remuneration scheme or performance related pay structure and further enhances engagement, through a clearer alignment with the organisation and its purpose, which transcends just making a profit. This counters the short-term outlook and will reduce the risk of the kind of failure so recently witnessed through such short-term focus.
d) Offers a communication bridge between the numbers people and the bottom line focus and the people focused organisational development people, through a standard KPI of “Return on Human Assets.” Not only will this provide a means of assessing management’s leadership performance, but it will also provide shareholders and investors with a clearer idea of what redundancy programmes actually mean for an organisation.

This solution will start to break down the pyramid structure, spread leadership throughout the organisation and provide the first practical platform for moving away from the command and control style that has long been claimed to be extinct, but whose legacy continues to shape organisational behaviour.

Even better, this approach, once properly implemented, eliminates employee engagement as a management issue. Employee engagement is “the hot tpoic of the year” because people are so disengaged. It is, however, a symptom of all the other problems depicted in your piece. Eliminate those and build a structure that recognises the value and contribution of your people and you remove the issue, permamanently, while at the same time reducing the risk of future failure and building a platform for sustained success.

Aplogies for the length of this comment, but such a comprehensive article necessitates it. I hope this strikes a chord with your readers.

Isn’t this all deeply conservative, if not reactionary, and more?

The deepest issue with HR practitioners and scholars in UK is the tendency to reify the organization. That there is political and personal interest is undeniable – as FlipChartFairyTales was willing to say openly.

The psychology of engagement is well known and understood, and has been for over 30 years.

What is harder is the real world negotiation of the purpose of the organization, our place in it and the division of spoils. That is where UK HR has to go.

And this is no longer desirable. It is essential if not to be politicl suicide.

Allen Taylor

I hope you further put important point into consideration and do further research.

Delawar Barekzai