This week, our topic is Leading for Fit - helping our followers reach the best possible match between their jobs and their unique characteristics: talents, experiences, values, personality, etc. Watch the video, below, introducing the main concept. Then, enjoy some of the resources for further learning below!

The question of the week is: Does your organization include alternative routes or paths for success?

Find a Fit Bibliography HERE.
Find a Webinar on Fit and Career Advising HERE.
Read the book FLOW, by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi​

Are you interested in leadership development following The Meaningful Leader® model? Please find out more about Linked:HR's Leadership Development services in THIS PAGE.

Last week, I discussed the problem caused by silos in the organization. When we work in silos, we fail to cooperate and fall into a competition "default." A related topic is information sharing.

Why might people not share information at work? There are various possible reasons:

• The system creates boxes. Organizational structures and silos pose barriers to communications. For example, virtual teams may not have a process in place to communicate effectively. Also, the current culture may discourage open communications. For example, too much may be considered "confidential" (even items that do not require confidentiality). Employees are only expected to share information on a "need to know basis" (and often we don't know what others need to know). 
• We like our boxes. Last week, I addressed social identity bias, our tendency to prefer members of our team.  Reasonably, people are more likely to speak with members of their own teams.
• We don't speak the languages of occupants of other boxes. I am not only referring to different national languages. We could speak different "cultural" languages pertaining to our organizational function (jargons, anyone?) or geographical location.  That said, international organizations may experience even more challenges.
• We don't know what we know. Thus, we may fail to share information simply because we do not realize others need it.

Engaging or meaningful leaders do not leave good communications to chance. Instead, they:

• Openly share information whenever possible
• Encourage their followers to share information
• Are good listeners, pay close attention to what their followers say
• Promote a culture of openness and transparency

I recently analyzed data from one of my own engagement surveys. The data set included 683 responses. I found positive and significant relationships between all components of engagement and answers to the items above. The overall correlation between the average of those items and engagement was .453. 

​In other words, leaders perceived to be good listeners, openly share information, encourage employees to do the same, and overall promote a culture of transparency were more likely to have an engaged team. I measured the following components of engagement:

• Energy - using our physical energy at work
• Focus - using our cognitive energy at work, focusing on the work we do, resisting distractions
• Passion - our enjoyment and appreciation for the work we do
• Pride - a sense of deep connection to the organization, willingness to recommend our organization to others, a sincere sense of pride in what the organization does
• Role expansion - our willingness to "go above and beyond" the call of duty

A caveat: As you may remember from the last course you took in Statistics (even if you took it many moons ago), correlation does not mean cause. I am not saying that open communications cause engagement - instead, my data suggest a relationship between a culture of transparency and open-communications environment and the employees' energy, focus, passion, role expansion, and pride. Here are a few possible reasons:

• People need resources to work well.  A lack of balance between resources and challenges is a clear recipe for burnout. Information is a critical work resource.
• Lack of transparency is likely to reduce trust. Inevitably, rumor mills will occupy the space left by a communication vaccuum. 
• Open communications increase feelings of safety. Engagement is tied to feelings of psychological safety. People need to bring their real selves to work.  When the environment is open and transparent, feelings of safety could increase.

This week, therefore, I have two questions for our community:

• What examples do you have of poor communications at work?
• What initiatives have you seen that enhanced communications in the workplace?

Try assigning a task to two or three teams in a training room. The task does not matter. You could ask people to build a structure to protect a city from (enter whatever catastrophe you can think of), solve a puzzle, or answer a set of questions.  Whatever the challenge, teams are not likely to collaborate with each other. At most, you'll succeed in inter-team collaboration - and that is, if you are lucky and engage in some reasonable preparation. 

Human beings are wired to prefer members of their teams. We feel comfortable inside our boxes, even if said boxes are recent (for example, even if we had not met the members of our team before). The problem: Members of effective organizations must work towards a common purpose.  Meaningful leaders, therefore, are able to break silos. They encourage their team members to work well with their team members and to collaborate with others. 

Here is my question this week: What are some effective interventions to encourage collaboration? What have you seen that works?

We often dicuss the importance of trust in the workplace and for good reason. Without trust, everything would need to be double and triple checked. Efficiency would disappear - and so would innovation.  

Trust, however, is not blind.  You should not trust me, for example, to handle the financial health of your organization - not because I lack integrity but because I know nothing about finances and would be the world's worst CFO. It's also perfectly reasonable to double check on the work of a very inexperienced intern learning the ropes of something new.

In this brief video, I share five components of trust: Benevolence, authenticity, reliability, fairness, and competence. This video is the first in a series of discussions on Meaningful Leadership - a collection of competencies that help forge an engaging environment for all employees.

Please share your experiences! Have you observed the five components of trust I mention in the video? 

In the wake of the heartbreaking mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, I asked Linked:HR members to follow Dr. Margaret Wheatley's advice and create an "Island of Sane Behavior." Watch the invitation below and share your comments. How can we create an environment of trust, safety, and acceptance, when the world around us is going crazy?