Seven Reasons Managers Give For Not Engaging Their People
By Michael Wilkinson, CMF
Managing Director, Leadership Strategies, Inc.
“Michael, you talk a lot in your classes about the power of buy-in and engagement. You say that when leaders engage their people in decision-making and gain their buy-in, this helps turn the ‘I have to…’ into ‘I get to…’ And I agree, there is power in that; I agree that when my people feel like they ‘get to’ do something, they put a whole lot more into in than those times when they feel like they ‘have to’ do something. But engagement doesn’t make sense for my organization because…”
Sound familiar. Whatever comes next out of the executive’s mouth will be his or her reason for why engagement doesn’t work. Let’s be clear on this point. Engaging people can be a challenge. It’s nearly always easier to just make a decision rather than engage other people in the decision-making. Engagement takes time. It tends to slow things down. And when you engage you have to listen, a skill on which many of us are still improving. Yet when the people impacted by a decision have little or no involvement in making the decision or in determining how the decision will be executed, a lack of buy-in is often the result.
And when people don’t buy-in, you know what happens? Frequently nothing. And in those times when something does happen, the result is typically less than what was intended because people drag their feet, get in the way, sub-optimize performance, etc.
So if engagement is so important, why don’t leaders engage their people more in decision-making? What are the reasons leaders give for not engaging. Here is my top seven list given David Letterman-style.
#7. My people are lazy. They just want to be told what to do.
Every organization has people who just want to be told what do. However, in the typical workplace, this group is shrinking fast. The X, Y, and millennial generations have little interest in workplaces where they are just a pair of hands and feet. They want to be engaged and have the opportunity to be heard.
#6. They are just concerned about their area. They won’t take the company view.
Again, this is often a true statement. Left to their own devices, people frequently take a parochial, “how does it impact me” view.
To help counter this tendency, we establish ground rules early in the engagement process. “Take the Big View” is one I frequently use for this purpose. I explain it this way, “Many of us may have walked into this room with the goal of getting the most for our area. And if this is how we are going to operate through the day, let’s end the meeting now because there is no way it can be productive with each of us battling for our own needs. But if we are going to continue the meeting, let’s agree that our goal is to determine what is best for the organization and this means making decisions with the organization’s interest in mind first. We call this taking the big view. If you don’t believe you can take the big view while you are in the room, I would like to invite you to leave now. (pause) Let’s agree then that if for any reason any of us slips into the little view, please someone yell out, ‘Let’s remember to take the big view.’
#5. It would be a waste of time. These people never agree on anything.
You can indeed waste a lot of times in meetings with people arguing and disagreeing. Or another common dysfunction can happen: leaders can believe they have consensus because people didn’t say anything or didn’t object. But once the meeting ends, the real meeting begins and people voice their complaints and concerns in one-on-one discussions and at the cyber water cooler (i.e., text messages).
At Leadership Strategies, we believe conflict and disagreement can lead to creative solutions and higher levels of buy-in. To be successful at doing this, however, leaders must understand the reasons people disagree (there are only three!) and have effective strategies for moving from conflict to solution. (See our course, The Effective Facilitator, or our newsletter article on consensus for more information.) Disagreements can become a vehicle for engagement and better solutions when handled effectively.
#4. Why would I ask them? They don’t see what I see.
Leaders tend to have a wider view than their people of the factors impacting success. While each of their people may be involved in specific segments of a problem, leaders have the bigger view and can take into account issues and concerns of which their people are likely unaware. So certainly engagement without education can lead to foolish decisions.
For their people to be involved in decision-making, leaders must give them the information and education they need to be successful. Leaders must help their people understand what has been done in the past, what has worked, what hasn’t worked and any known constraints or barriers.
Keep in mind, however, just as leaders may be aware of issues of which their people are likely unaware, in this same way, their people are likely aware of issues needing to be addressed of which their leader is unaware!
#3. If I ask them what we should do, they will think I’m stupid or a weak leader.
Past generations have generally seen doubt and indecision as a sign of weakness. Fortunately workers in more current generations typically appreciate leaders who seek their input, who admit their mistakes, and who are willing to reconsider past decisions. Openness is seen as a strength and listening as the exercise that increases the strength.
#2. If I ask them, what if they don’t say what I want them to say?
When leaders are already sure what the right answer is, there is little point to asking. Inviting input on conclusions that have already been reached is a waste of everyone’s time. And worse, their people may learn to distrust requests for engagements as thinly veiled attempts at manipulation. (When someone tries to use facilitation techniques to have a group produce a pre-determined answer, we call this “facipulation.”)
There are several alternatives to facipulation. For example, in strategic planning, when leaders already have a vision that they believe is the right answer for their organization, it is a waste of time to ask the planning participants what they believe the vision should be. Instead, we have leaders share their thoughts on the vision. We then ask the planning participants to indicate what they like about the vision and suggestions for making it better. Typically we have the entire group discuss the various suggestions for improvement and vote on the suggestions to recommend to the leader. The leader is present for the entire discussion and participates as just another participant. Once the vote is done, however, the leader decides (either during the meeting or following the meeting) which suggestions to take.
Another alternative to facipulation is to change the question. Using the example in the prior paragraph, if the vision is indeed a “given,” instead of asking what the vision should be, change the question by describing the vision that has been decided, giving people a chance to comment, and then asking, “What are potential approaches for implementing the vision?” The engagement focuses on vision implementation not on vision creation.
And now, for the number one reason leaders give for not engaging their people…
#1. No one of us is as dumb as all of us.
“Group think” is the term that is used to describe the propensity groups can have to come to decisions that no one wants but the dynamics of the group prevent better thinking to prevail. The classic video “The Road to Abilene” shows how a group came to the conclusion to do something that no one in the group wanted and everyone disliked once implemented. The old quip, “A camel is a horse made by committee,” is another example of the fear of group thinking gone astray.
Leaders who are concerned that the thinking of the group will produce sub-optimal solutions, might consider the following strategies, some of which already have been identified.
- Educate the group to ensure everyone has the information needed to make informed decisions.
- Use ground rules, such as “take the big view,” to get people focused beyond their own interests.
- Define the desired qualities of a solution to help ensure selected alternatives meet minimum criteria.
- Employ analysis strategies to get people to objectively evaluate alternatives by identifying strengths and weaknesses and assessing alternatives against criteria.
There are indeed times when engagement may not be appropriate such as, for example, when there is indeed no time for discussion or when the decision or information supporting the decision needs to be confidential. However, given the power that can be gain from full buy-in, we believe engagement should be the rule rather than the exception.
Interested in learning more and engagement and facilitation strategies? Check out our course, The Effective Facilitator.
Michael Wilkinson is the Managing Director of Leadership Strategies – The Facilitation Company, and a much sought after trainer, facilitator and speaker. He is a Certified Master Facilitator and a Certified Professional Facilitator. As a past president of the Southeast Association of Facilitators and a board member of the National Institute of Facilitation, Michael is a national leader in the facilitation industry. You can get more tips from either of Michael’s books, The Secrets of Facilitation or The Secrets to Masterful Meetings. You can receive a signed copy through our website.
