Tag Archives: Peter Block

Zappos and Employee Empowerment

Posted on by

Continuing with the stories brought to mind by the business news accounts of Zappos.com.

News accounts point out that 14% of Zappos employees accepted a severance package instead of go forward with the fad of the month: Holacracy.

I’m not surprised with the percentage of employees who choose to leave the company. I’m sure there are many reasons but one resonates with me.

Peter Block described a simulation his colleague Joel Henning designed, which rings true in most of my experience:

Three teams role-played high-control patriarchal leadership, cosmetic empowerment, and genuine participation and empowerment. The high control group was quiet, had their arms folded, and had one or two pale, informational questions at the end. When asked their feelings about the meeting, they said they felt controlled and punished.

The cosmetic empowerment team had many questions, all of which were cynical and reeked of barter and deal making. They asked, “What’s in it for me?” and “Where did this fad come from?” They wanted the leaders to prove their sincerity. There was a lot of laughter and energy during the meeting. Upon reflection, they felt manipulated and doubtful, although they admired the cleverness of the strategy.

The genuine participation group went last and when they shared their intention to involve everyone in defining the program and solution the employees would have none of it. They wanted a common vision and strategy, they wanted to know what was expected of them and were fed up with this soft, open-ended non-solution. They questioned who was in charge and who was going to steer the ship to a safe harbor. They wanted to know what management was going to do to fix the problem. In processing the meeting, they felt management had abdicated. The employees had 20 suggestions about how the team could have done a better job and voted no confidence.

What disturbed Block?

• We resent patriarchy and its dominance,
• We become cynical at attempts at cosmetic change,
• Yet faced with the prospects of real participation and accountability for an unpredictable tomorrow, patriarchy begins to look better and better.

Block concluded that while we may talk blithely about the end of command and control, emotionally we miss it when it’s gone. If we are offered real choice and power, we push our leaders back into a controlling and directive stance. Our lips may say no to a benevolent monarch, but our eyes say yes. Leaders see the longing for good parenting in our eyes, and they have little choice but to respond.

Genuine empowerment carries freedom, responsibility, and accountability with it. We get to make choices about the work that we do. We get to select between alternatives that matter. It is our job to make our decisions real and to implement action steps. We get rewarded or punished, praised or criticized for our choices and actions. We get to act like adults and are treated like grownups. Many of us don’t want this level of adulthood in our work lives. Many of us, instead, want freedom from responsibility and escape from conflict.

Genuine involvement is messy, difficult, and time consuming. Reactive problem-solvers have to learn to be imaginative anticipators and that is hard to do—maybe impossible. People disconnected from others throughout their competitive work histories have to learn to listen, engage, connect, cooperate, compromise, empathize with others, and find win-win solutions. People who only feel okay when they are accomplishing a task have to learn to sit still, think, and engage with others. For them it feels unproductive

Many of us don’t want to develop new emotional and intellectual muscles. When put in a situation that asks us to stretch, we can’t get away from ourselves fast enough. We may prefer to be one of the walking dead so prevalent in our organizations. Aliveness is way too threatening for us.

Zappos and The Dark Side of Leadership

Posted on by

Zappos CEO Tony Hsieh described a dramatically new design for the company and told employees to get on board or leave the company with a severance package. He made this announcement via a 4,552 word email. The email was long, directive, jargon-filled and overwhelming.

Approximately 14% of Zappos employees left the company.

One paragraph from the email:

As of 4/30/15, in order to eliminate the legacy management hierarchy, there will be effectively be no more people managers. In addition, we will begin the process of breaking down our legacy silo’ed structure/circles of merchandising, finance, tech, marketing, and other functions and create self-organizing and self-managing business-centric circles instead by starting to fund this new model with the appropriate resources needed to flourish. Functions that were previously silo’ed will be embedded inside these business-centric circles instead — this structure will require fewer roles that primarily manage expectations and drive alignment across legacy silos. We will continue using Holacracy’s systems and processes for prioritization and resource allocation, so it’ll be extremely important for all of us to keep Glass Frog up to date.

Say again?

I imagine that in the beginning Zappos.Com, like almost all organizations, operated from a mechanistic/paternalistic model: linear, hierarchical and compartmentalized organizations with functionalized departments with detailed job descriptions and rigid rules and boundaries.  A machine where managers tell workers to follow directions and leave the thinking to management. Mechanics (supervisors) with metaphorical wrenches tighten controls in search of consistency and predictability. Not a place of self-management, self-organization or humanistic values–anti-human places where conformity is the first rule.

Here’s what happens too often: Smart executives want to transform their enterprises from  mechanistic/paternalistic systems to various forms of employee involvement/engagement such as self-managed teams or self-organization for the bottom-line benefits of fully engaged employees. Suddenly the company talks about valuing employees. Leaders get excited to get going. They begin to put self-managed teams or self-organized teams in place. But their deeper beliefs and perhaps the only model of organizations they have ever known–often unconsciously–remain mechanical/paternalistic. With good intentions, they unconsciously fall victim to what author Peter Block defined as the dark side of leadership, “The very system that has patriarchy as the root problem uses patriarchal means to try to eliminate its symptoms.” We recreate what we want to change. Befuddled employees might feel crazy.

We cannot create organic–relationship based–organizational forms (self-management) with the thinking and skills used to manage mechanistic organizations.

Was Mr. Hsieh’s email an example of the dark side of leadership?

Before they rush into the fads (fads not because the theory is bad; fads because leaders like quick-fixes and move on quickly when change gets hard) of the day, people must have what Peter Senge called “moments of Metanoia.” Their inner shift opens them to a new and more expansive world view. Their underlying beliefs and assumptions about people, leadership and organizations change. The light bulb goes on and they “get it.”

Organizational mechanics can still use the mechanistic world view and tools of Newtonian physics for machines and linear work processes but now organizational artists can use the living system worldview from chaos theory, quantum physics and other natural sciences–where relationships are fundamental–for people.

This shift in thinking, required for self-management to succeed calls for new thinking and new skills not generally common  in mechanistic organizations. For example, systems thinking, emotional intelligence, conflict management skills, facilitation skills, a tough-love mentality. Evolved people must be developed or found. People with the courage and character to live by their personal and organizational values. Self-directed and assertive people who will take risks and who want to learn. And leaders must love people.

Most efforts to transform organizations fail. Real transformation is hard and rare. Few leaders have the skills, ability, wisdom, maturity or experience to lead successful organizational transformation. And many leaders, at all levels, are needed.

Instead of a paternalistic top-down memo, the leaders at Zappos might have used their imaginations to find a way to engage directly with employees about the vision for the future.They might have invited employees to engage in examining and charting the future course of Zappos.Com.

People comply and conform to top-down orders and threats; they support what they help create.

See Value Driven Leadership: A Story of Personal and Organizational Transformation.

A Higher Standard

Posted on by

As a consultant, I pushed empowerment. I believe that those closest to the work know the work the best and are the right people to make decisions about the work they do. I’ve helped leaders make strong efforts at empowerment and find that the change from paternalistic cultures is slow.

Peter Block described a simulation his colleague Joel Henning designed, which rings true in most of my experience:

Three teams role-played high-control patriarchal leadership, cosmetic empowerment, and genuine participation and empowerment. The high control group was quiet, had their arms folded, and had one or two pale, informational questions at the end. When asked their feelings about the meeting, they said they felt controlled and punished.

The cosmetic empowerment team had many questions, all of which were cynical and reeked of barter and deal making. They asked, “What’s in it for me?” and “Where did this fad come from?” They wanted the leaders to prove their sincerity. There was a lot of laughter and energy during the meeting. Upon reflection, they felt manipulated and doubtful, although they admired the cleverness of the strategy.

The genuine participation group went last and when they shared their intention to involve everyone in defining the program and solution the employees would have none of it. They wanted a common vision and strategy, they wanted to know what was expected of them and were fed up with this soft, open-ended non-solution. They questioned who was in charge and who was going to steer the ship to a safe harbor. They wanted to know what management was going to do to fix the problem. In processing the meeting, they felt management had abdicated. The employees had 20 suggestions about how the team could have done a better job and voted no confidence.

What disturbed Block?

  • We resent patriarchy and its dominance,
  • We become cynical at attempts at cosmetic change,
  • Yet faced with the prospects of real participation and accountability for an unpredictable tomorrow, patriarchy begins to look better and better.

Block concluded that while we may talk blithely about the end of command and control, emotionally we miss it when it’s gone. If we are offered real choice and power, we push our leaders back into a controlling and directive stance. Our lips may say no to a benevolent monarch, but our eyes say yes. Leaders see the longing for good parenting in our eyes, and they have little choice but to respond.

Genuine empowerment carries freedom, responsibility, and accountability with it. We get to make choices about the work that we do. We get to select between alternatives that matter. It is our job to make our decisions real and to implement action steps. We get rewarded or punished, praised or criticized for our choices and actions. We get to act like adults and are treated like grownups. Many of us don’t want this level of adulthood in our work lives. Many of us, instead, want freedom from responsibility and escape from conflict.

Genuine involvement is messy, difficult, and time consuming. Reactive problem-solvers have to learn to be imaginative anticipators and that is hard to do—maybe impossible. People disconnected from others throughout their competitive work histories have to learn to listen, engage, connect, cooperate, compromise, empathize with others, and find win-win solutions. People who only feel okay when they are accomplishing a task have to learn to sit still, think, and engage with others.

Many of us don’t want to develop new emotional and intellectual muscles. When put in a situation that asks us to stretch, we can’t get away fast enough. We may prefer to be one of the walking dead so prevalent in our organizations. Aliveness is way too threatening for us.

Why do we need a higher standard?

In the past decade alone billions were spent on leadership development and employee involvement and empowerment programs. How’s it working for us?

Today Gallup research shows that 74% of American workers are disengaged clock-watchers who cannot wait to go home. We know that the vast majority of change efforts are deemed failures by those who lead them. The sustainability of Fortune 500 companies pales in comparison to its potential.

We can’t afford to continue with the status quo: Not as a nation, a company, or a person.