|
|
|
|
|
|
Blog
Helen Giles, 05 Apr 2011
The Sunday Times 100 Best Companies To Work For listings were recently published for 2011.
Like it or not, this has become the gold standard for employee engagement with more and more companies, public sector bodies and charities entering every year. The write-ups on those voted into the top slots are rich with ideas to be borrowed by those organisations aspiring to get their staff to rate them up there with the best next year.
We've all seen the irrefutable link that has been established between high levels of engagement and company performance. I have no doubt that if you walk into any business location of a Sunday Times Best Company, you will be able to smell in the air the enthusiasm and commitment emanating from the staff team.
One thing that surprised me greatly, therefore, on reading this year's results was a top 10 list of the companies scoring positively against the question 'There is an individual in my team who is disruptive'. The highest scoring company could only muster a 75% positive agreement that their staff don't work with someone disruptive. If one follows this through, it might be assumed that even in the most highly motivated, high performing companies, at least 25% of the workforce work alongside disruptive colleagues. What must it be like in companies with much lower levels of engagement?
Which leads me to ask the question, why is it that we tolerate so many disruptive individuals in the British workplace? Is it (a) because managers just can't summon the wherewithal to have those difficult conversations, (b) we're too busy trying to create fun for people at work to focus on holding people accountable, (c) the cosy carapace afforded by employment law and tribunals to those disinclined to follow the rules make it much easier to tolerate rather than tackle disruptive behaviour, or (d) some other reason? Answers on a postcard please.
2 comments on this article |
Doug Shaw 08 Apr 2011
I quite like being disruptive, and being disrupted too. Business leaders all cry out for creativity and yet they underestimate the inevitable disruption that goes with trying something new. ANd they frewquently punich the mistakes that come with experimentation too. It's a question of balance I guess but I'd take some disruption and a few bumps in the road over the dullness of nodding heads and silent compliance any day.
Francis Goss, Grass Roots 11 Apr 2011
Interesting observation Helen. I think it all comes down to what we interpret as ‘disruptive behaviour’ If it’s someone pushing the boundaries of creativity, asking “why do we have to do it this way?” then disruptiveness can be a positive thing – how can we ever innovate if we never challenge the status quo? If however disruptiveness is defined as a deliberate and cynical opposition to the direction that the leaders are taking the business, the impact can be negative on employee engagement. No one likes to see people getting away with behaviours and attitudes that are simply not good for the business. It takes brave and decisive leadership to deal with negative disruptive behaviour, and perhaps organisations need to train and coach their leaders on how to deal with disruptive staff while still harnessing creativity.
Latest Issue - May 2012
The myth of the axolotl is one of nature’s most fascinating.
MA Business & Leisure Limited © Copyright 2012, All Rights Reserved
Send to a friend