“I truly want to make my team happy,” Melanie wished out loud.
“Please don’t focus on making team members happy,” I replied. “Being happy may be a byproduct, but what we want is engagement. What does it take to keep team members engaged in the work that we do? As managers, we do things instinctively to get the work done, without thinking about the longer term impact of engagement. Getting the work done is short term, to meet the weekly metrics.” I paused. “We need to think about getting the work done well for the next five years. We do that best with a team we can keep together, working in sync with each other.”
“We almost always meet our metrics,” she said. “But, it feels forced, overtime, uneven effort from some team members. I mean, we get there, but sometimes, it’s not pretty.”
“So, even if the team meets their metrics, but isn’t working in sync, where are you, as a manager?” I asked.
“That’s the word,” Melanie smiled. “Working in sync? I can force the team, but it requires me to be dominant, create pressure, in short, get the team to be compliant to the metrics. I am exhausted at the end of the day.”
“That is why, in building an organization,” I continued my thought, “it is not enough to have the right people in the right seats, we have to think about how the seats work together.”
“That sounds nice for an orchestra,” she chuckled, “but what about here, where we have to get some work done?”
I smiled back. “In every working relationship that we design, we have to think critically. In this working relationship, what are the accountabilities we expect? And, in this working relationship, who has the authority? Authority to make decisions and solve problems the way we would have them solved? It is the design of the structure that creates team member engagement. It is the design of the structure that creates flow, everyone working in sync.”