Ownership Convergence
by Miki SaxonIn 2006, before I took over Leadership Turn, Mary Jo Manzanares wrote a post called Team Building & Interpersonal Communication; Saturday, Steven J Barker brought up an interesting point and suggested that we explore it.
“I would be interested to hear your thoughts on differences between personal ownership and group ownership. From first glance those differences seem subtle, but I have a feeling that they are far reaching.”
I thought about that, not just in the context that Mary Jo wrote it, but in the larger one of companies and individuals with whom I’ve worked over the years and here is what strikes me.
I think the difference isn’t just far reaching, but of critical importance because they can be dangerous to the organization.
How so?
Think of group ownership as a form of nationalism with the company in place of the country.
Now think of personal ownership as an ideology.
As long as the nationalism and individual ideologies are aligned or, at the very least, synergistic, then the organization benefits.
But when they are in conflict disagreements become wars, whether overt or covert, energy is wasted, productivity lost and progress comes to a grinding halt.
You have only to look around the world to see how inflexible ideologies tear countries apart and set one part against the other.
The solution to this starts by hiring people that are good fits with the company’s culture. That doesn’t mean they always agree—the last thing you want is a homogenized team—but it does mean that they are flexible enough to put the company first, and their personal ideology second.
Another critical factor in keeping the various ownerships aligned is communication.
By providing complete understanding of the company’s goals, how each person can best contribute to their accomplishment and how those contributions will help achieve the individual’s own goals unites the team and helps it achieve more than any member thought possible.
What else would you do to increase ownership convergence?
Your comments—priceless
Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL
Image credit: dominiqs on flickr
August 6th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Miki, I think you’ve got it. I love the analogy to nationalism and ideology. You are right to say that the solution is to hire the right people. My only suggestion is to change the order of your last two paragraphs. I think step one is to understand who you are as a company and be able to clearly express your goals. Step two is then to communicate that with your potential hire and allow them do decide wether they fit that culture.
It is a very difficult task to assess a strangers ideology and we only make our jobs harder when we take that task and place it solely on our own shoulders. How much better off would our teams and organizations be if new teammates knew precisely what they were joining? And how much easier would your job be if you knew you weren’t the only one assessing wether or not this new relationship is a “good fit”?
August 6th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Hi Steven, thanks. As to the last two paragraphs, in my world my clients understand their culture before they ever hire.
Culture is used to screen candidates and hiring uses a team approach (but individual interviews) with the caveat not to ‘lead the witness’.
People aren’t dumb, if you tell a candidate that this is how we think and this is how we are they will tell you what you want to hear to get the offer.
You assess their ideology by finding out WHAT they did previously, HOW they did it, WHY it was done that way and if what they would DO IT DIFFERENTLY if they were in charge.
Once you have a good feeling for that then sharing your organization culture, goals, etc. tells them if they want to be a part of it.
Does that make sense?
August 6th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
Your right. People aren’t dumb, they know that when you ask ” WHAT they did previously, HOW they did it, WHY it was done that way and if what they would DO IT DIFFERENTLY if they were in charge” that you are looking for the “right” answer. They are most likely going to answer in a way that they believe you would want them to answer.
I guess what I’m leaning toward is the employer’s reputation. That in it’s self is going to help you filter through the applicants. You won’t even get a resume from some people purely because they know they won’t fit.
August 6th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
Miki, I must say this interaction is a lot of fun. In light of what we have been talking about, what are your thoughts on Zappos hiring/training process?
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFyW5s_7ZWc#t=5m25s)
Does it fit into our conversation?
August 6th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
Hi Steven, I agree, I love conversations with readers. And I LOVE Zappos; I’ve written a lot about them on my other blog.
So in response to both your comments.
First, I did say in my previous response that culture is used to screen candidates and that is exactly what Zappos does.
Regarding not leading the witness, it’s impossible for a candidate to spin every response with every interviewer to fit. There are always questions about what you did in your last job and how you/your team handled the challenges. The WHY draws out the style of the previous manager and that employer’s culture. The “what would you do differently” gives candidates a chance to talk about how their approaches and solutions. It doesn’t matter how much they know about the company they are interviewing, it’s almost impossible to spin the ‘what would you do differently’ answers to fit a culture, since they aren’t really culture based.
Here’s more information on not leading the witness here.
I look forward to more interaction:)