Comments on: The First Step of Employee Engagement is in Your Head

By: Samuel B. Bacharach

Samuel B. Bacharach — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 22:40:25 +0000

Lee,

Managers reacting to market forces and uncertainty, it seems, will do anything to reduce risk. The swing between the YOYO style and the MBWA style could reflect, depending on your opinion, current economic factors coupled with larger business trends. Further study on management styles as they correlate to these variables would be exciting.

What I wanted to stress in the post was that employment engagement always existed in some sense in management literature and that it’s not exactly a “new” concept. However, it is making a come back and outpacing YOYO strategies–especially since we saw the bust of the internet bubble and witnessed 2008′s crisis first hand.

Lastly, I will join you in your excitement to see a return to the MBWA management style. If done right it can lead to great things. However, we have to celebrate cautiously. In the wrong organizational hands MBWA can cause turmoil of all stripes.

Best,

Sam

By: Sam Bacharach

Sam Bacharach — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 22:22:05 +0000

Barry,
You make an excellent point. The “what’s in it for me” employees defiantly exist in theory X AND theory Y. To say that WIIFM is exclusive to theory X was a (lazy) short-cut to frame my larger argument.

More interestingly, your point concerning the best way to implement WIIFM rests, I think, remains at the heart of employee engagement. As you state, there is both healthy and unhealthy ways WIIFM can take shape and grow. I think it would be a great post to discuss this concept further. I will try to think of some relevant examples.

Also, for those of you interested in Barry’s last point check out his article on New Psychologies here: http://barrymapp.com/?s=New+Psychologies

By: Len Scott

Len Scott — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:27:10 +0000

It is not surprising that your VP HR colleague told you that employee engagement is now a “hot” management activity. Remember that we are coming off of years of YOYO (You are on your own.) mentality in the economy and in the workplace. Engaging employee through MBWA (Management by walking around) was supplanted during the YOYO years by HIO (Hiding in the office) management while workforces were decimated through layoffs, outsourcing, and offshoring. Competitive advantage through innovation and human resources motivation was scuttled for competitive advantage through shifting operations to low wage areas such as China, India, and Eastern Europe, much to the serious detriment of our country. Hopefully, MBWA with its employee engagement, motivation, and innovation stimulating benefits will return to the American work scene as the pendulum swings back from the end of the long endured YOYO era arc.

By: Barry Mapp

Barry Mapp — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:00:44 +0000

I concur with the general gist of your piece. I think it is more useful however to see McGregor’s Theory X as “assumes that employees want to be directed and avoid responsibility” rather than characterise it as WIIFM (What’s in it for me). WIIFM is a perfectly valid strategy for both X and Y types, it is in the nature and manifestation of the WIIFM that makes the difference. Phil Race’s research on the Learning Process identifies a wanting stage to learning (WIIFM) and a stage that is crucial to effective learning. It is the purpose and the reason why one undertakes self-improvement in the first place. It is only when WIIFM becomes “I’m not going to do that unless you reward me” that it fits the Theory X. This form of WIIFM is very likely consequence of long-term use and manipulation by extrinsic motivators. The ‘good form’ of WIIFM is a natural part of the process of effective learning (that is congruent with intrinsic motivation and sabotaged by over-use of extrinsic motivation.

I would also add that for me Theory X is based on ‘Old Psychology’ whereas Theory Y is compatible with the ‘New Psychologies’ (see my blog)