He will give his best to something else.
Could there be a stronger contrast in cultures between the ineffective organization Tom has “retired” from and the highly effective team at the Bakerloo Line?
The Challenge of Human Capital
Four blocks from the White House in Washington, D.C., an Art Deco office stands at the intersection of New York Avenue and 12th Street NW. The majority of the building’s second floor is home to the Partnership for Public Service (PPS). Over a decade ago, Samuel J. Heyman founded this nonprofit, nonpartisan organization to revitalize the United States federal government by transforming how the government works. He wanted to inspire a new generation of people to public service, similar to how John F. Kennedy had inspired him some forty years earlier.
Each year, PPS, with assistance from the global management-consulting firms Deloitte Consulting LLP and Hay Group, compiles and analyzes the Best Places to Work in the Federal Government rankings. The rankings draw from the Office of Personnel Management’s Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey and provide specific information about employee satisfaction and commitment.
In May 2014, PPS President and CEO Max Stier presented his assessment to the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Efficiency and Effectiveness of Federal Programs and the Federal Workforce. Stiers’ comments expressed several causes for concern. “Government-wide, federal employee job satisfaction and commitment dropped for the third year in a row, tumbling three points to a score of 57.8 on a scale of 100. This represents the lowest overall Best Places to Work score since the rankings were first launched in 2003.” Stier contrasted the level of satisfaction and commitment of federal workers to those in the private sector, which improved 0.7 points in 2013 to 70.7, according to the Hay Group. Stier’s testimony provided a litany of issues that impact the development of the federal workforce, including effective leadership, compensation, and performance-management processes, and provided legislative recommendations for Congress focused on the government’s human capital.4
Human capital.
What does that mean? Human capital? Don’t they mean financial capital? Isn’t it financial capital that organizations are concerned about? Why are they worried about human capital? Why is that a top-of-mind issue?
Let’s tackle the financial-capital question first. There is no doubt that finances matter: a vision without the necessary resources to make it happen is just a hallucination. However, as necessary as funding is, it is equally insufficient. Throwing money at a problem doesn’t guarantee a successful outcome, nor does trying to operate like a business guarantee a government organization’s success. Jim Collins said it well: “For a social sector organization, however, performance must be assessed relative to mission, not financial returns. In the social sectors, the critical question is not ‘How much money do we make per dollar of invested capital?’ but ‘How effectively do we deliver on our mission and make a distinctive impact, relative to our resources?’ ”
We have found that public-sector leaders across North America, Asia, Europe, and all corners of the world agree that their top priority is developing employees with the skills, knowledge, and experience to create tremendous value for the organization, its mission, and those it serves—in other words, developing human capital. They know about the dramatic difference between team members on the Bakerloo Line team and employees like Tom. The ultimate mission essential in the public sector belongs to organizations that can get the best contribution possible from the best people they can find. In simple terms, it means inspiring and motivating people to bring the best they can give, to the point where they fight through rush hour on the Bakerloo Line for you!5
It raises the question, “Why is there no outbreak of great cultures in the public sector if so many leaders and employees are aware of both the problem and the opportunity?”
Let’s explore one of the problems: The majority of government workers in the United States are not engaged or are actively disengaged from their work. According to Gallup, it’s 71 percent. That means leaders have failed to motivate and inspire more than 7 out of 10 of their workers. Consider this: In the United States government alone, there are 2.7 million civilian workers. That means that nearly 2 million of them are not engaged in their work.6
“The majority of the United States government workers are not engaged or are actively disengaged from their work.”
Imagine extrapolating this number to include public-sector workers at all levels of the government (federal, state, and local) and not-for-profit organizations in countries around the world. Even a conservative figure suggests millions of people like Tom—each one unique, with talent, skill, and passion, and great contributions to make—are mentally and emotionally retired.
When Dr. Stephen R. Covey spoke to his audiences around the globe, he would always ask, “How many of you honestly believe that the vast majority of the people in your organization possess more intelligence, talent, capability, creativity, and resourcefulness than their present jobs require or even allow?” In every case, nearly every hand went up.
“How many of you honestly believe that the vast majority
of the people in your organization possess more intelligence, talent, capability, creativity, and resourcefulness than their present jobs require
or even allow?”
—Stephen R. Covey
Why is this so? Because too many leaders don’t know how to engage people. When leaders don’t know exactly how to do something, they can default to the things they do know how to do—budget, project management, operations, etc. Oftentimes in a highly regulated environment, these are also the things that are most constrained and, ultimately, especially in the case of budget, not in a leader’s Circle of Influence®. A leader’s job is to establish an operating system that allows people to contribute their very best, consistently and compellingly. And because intentionally building and maintaining a winning culture is completely within a leader’s Circle of Influence, this is also his or her most powerful lever for achieving results.
The Government Executive Media Group explains that the research conducted by Gallup, along with the results of the PPS Best Places to Work rankings, clearly show that leaders play a key role in growing employee engagement, empowerment, and appreciation. Unfortunately, Government Executive also reports that empowerment ranks an abysmal 43.8 out of 100 among government leaders. Some cast the issue aside, arguing that the low score is a function of the unique challenges to government organizations, which include pay, policies, and systems. There is some truth to this claim. The systems can be very challenging at times; you can’t just show a poor performer the door. Others suggest that the score is the result of the growing competitive cauldron in the public sector—outside pressures, diminishing resources, and increased scrutiny.
True, some of these leadership challenges are unique to the idiosyncrasies of the public sector. Engaging people is a tough job in the public sector, but it’s a challenge in the private sector as well. According to a survey on global CEO performance by Stanford University’s Center for Leadership Development and Research, engaging people is rated the “top weakness” of CEOs. Some leaders, like Tom’s boss, actively discourage people. Mostly, though, they just don’t have the skill to lead people. After reviewing the Stanford study, Forbes Magazine concluded that “CEOs are doing a lousy job when it comes to people management.”7
Leaders know they’re not doing a good job managing their people, and it troubles them. They need to capture the hearts and minds of their people to build a team like TfL’s Bakerloo Line. It’s the biggest job they have, but they don’t know how to do it. And it’s not just a senior leader’s problem; leaders at all levels struggle with it, particularly those who are new in their supervisory roles.
Let’s face it, there