Heart of the Art

Frederick Winslow Taylor was a much misunderstood man. He is now famous for 'Scientific Management' and is credited as the father of modern management consulting. His famous experiments on optimising shovel handle length to get the biggest volume of production from manual labourers are seen as some sort of ideal. They also have their origins in the thinking of the industrial revolution, where labour was cheap and was to be exploited in service of the new, cost-effective mechanised means of production.

This is to misunderstand Taylor. He wrote 'It would seem a farce to devote one's whole life and money merely to secure an increase in dividends for a whole lot of manufacturing companies'. Many modern business consultants would do well to understand that. Taylor, a pacifist, wanted to make work more meaningful and less exploitative. In doing so he believed it would be more profitable, in so many senses of that word, for all.

There are so many good examples to support this. Kurt Lewin's work with the Harwood pyjama factory is one. Involving people in creating their own goals and setting their own output didn't result in an idle workforce that did the minimum to get by. Instead it produced an upturn in performance of around 25% when control groups produced no change at all. This was one of the first examples of using group decision making and self-management to raise performance. It is worth noting that the workforce were able to directly see the impact of their changes for themselves, working as they were on piece-rate.

In England, Bamforth and Trist observed an interesting experience in 'responsible autonomy'. The South Yorkshire coalfield was a tough working environment, typified by poor relations between workforce, management and unions. Historically mining had been done in small teams by men working in atrocious conditions by shovel and pick. 'Longwall' mining was a technological step forward that speeded the rate of extraction. It also resulted in men doing narrow, specific job functions under close supervision. A different way of working this new technology, designed in collaboration between managers, miners and unions, led to the rediscovery of work teams. 'Continuous' mining was the result where people were viewed as skilled resources, not spare parts and productivity again rose.

So the lessons from these examples are clear and in stark contradiction to what is still perceived as wisdom. People, far from being lazy, idle skivers, will try to make their work as good as it can be, make it meaningful if given the opportunity to do so. Interesting, isn't it, that it is always others whom we perceive as lazy and unmotivated whereas 'we' are the one with such lofty intent. The truth is, if you divorce people from control over their own environment and separate them from seeing the outcomes of their efforts, work isn't meaningful. Without the ability to understand and influence, work becomes dull, monotonous and depressing. Understandably in such circumstances productivity drops.

In the Public Sector environment in England, levels of productivity are a concern. (There is also a debate as to what they really are.) In many workplaces jobs are highly specialised with lots of supervision, mirroring the South Yorkshire coalfield of the late 50s and early 60s. For an organisation like a local council to have over 600 'job families' is perverse. The underlying message in the structure is that people aren't trusted to together work out what a given circumstance needs and find the best way to deliver it. Instead they must be managed, supervised, controlled in order to get a good result.

There is much emphasis at present on different forms of governance and ownership. Cooperatives and social enterprises are held up as models of a utopian future. There is good evidence that employee owned businesses outperform privately owned enterprises over time. John Lewis being the much cited example of the current moment. I question though whether it is the ownership that matters or the relationships between employees as well as between them and their management and directors. Do employee owned organisations outperform employee led organisations? Do you really need to create a cooperative or some form of employee ownership to engage staff fully in the work of their enterprise? It feels as if organisational form can help make work more meaningful but is no guarantee that it will happen or by any means the only way to do it. It is the nature and quality of relationships and engagement that matters.

If we make work truly meaningful it doesn't mean we are making an easy life for employees. Instead we are allowing people control over their circumstances with all the risk and reward that brings. The ability to alter our behaviour to match our circumstances, to be responsible for what we do and the mark we leave in the world is to live a life that has meaning.

True leadership makes meaning.