-
The Connection Culture!! ✌👏 Love to hear from you
Humans require bonding to survive and thrive. Abraham Maslow, theorized that working together harmoniously is a basic human drive, a survival need.
Emotional bonds are as necessary to our survival as food and water.
When we are attached, we are connected and engaged. A workforce that is connected to a company’s mission, product or service, would be more productive, innovative, and happier.
When we consider these realities our act of instilling connection is an act of kindness, because we show our colleagues and clients that we care about their basic human drive to connect.
Workforce engagement makes or breaks a company. Workforce engagement has been defined as “the outcome organizations achieve when they connect employees both professionally and emotionally with the organization, the people in it, and the work they do.”
According to Gallup, disconnected and disengaged employees cost organizations productivity, innovation, and ultimately lots of money.
Please share any insights😀. In the last year, we have experienced a period where most had to work from home.
=================
✌Joel is a Trainer at Ripples Learning(CHRMP)
-
4 Replies
-
Well said thank you very much. I learnt something
-
Dear Tafadzwa,
Good to hear from you.😊
I am glad you enjoyed learning here.
In this article, I described what excellent employee engagement can do for an organization.
If you can share some insight 😊 as in what can make pupils better/happier employees in an organization?
Thanks
Joel
-
-
Hmm I like the definition of engagement that you have given Joel, ‘the outcome achieved…”! And I do agree to whatever you have said. And it is a great definition to know.
Where my mind gets confused is here:
I think organisations can grow very quick even without this engagement factor. If you would have read about Steve Jobs, he was very ruthless with his employees and would go to any extent to get what he wanted. And APPLE did become the dominating brand in its segment of products. What is your thought here?
-
‘Apple/Steve Jobs’ as an organisations grew in a different point in time, the 70’s belonged to a culture that is different from the one today. Those years were the ‘baby boomer’ years.
Changing times require change management.
The millennial generation, gen y, gen z belong to the current period. The employee culture of this generation are very different from the employee culture of the 70s or 80s and hence the employees of the current generation, prefer being engaged with in a different manner.
As you mentioned, ‘Steve jobs’ “he was very ruthless with his employees and would go to any extent to get what he wanted”
Having said that,
Steve Jobs, at one point fired one of his best programmers, for the reason being, the employee had lost focus on the company’s mission.
Steve jobs was asked to leave his position at ‘Apple’, very early in his career. Something that could have happened for a no of reasons.
From an online extract
“He got ideas in his head, and the hell with what anybody else wanted to do.” Even former Pepsi President John Sculley, who had joined Apple to play the role of Jobs’ babysitter of sorts, couldn’t handle working with him. In fact, Sculley orchestrated the ouster himself, comparing Jobs to a relentless zealot
Ref: http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1873486_1873491_1873461,00.html
==================================
But in 1997, with the company operating at a loss and Microsoft’s Windows 95 flying off the shelves, Apple’s board decided that a zealot was just what it needed. In August of that year, Jobs rejoined the board in august, becoming CEO — at first, with an “interim” — the following month. “He had become a far better leader
Ref: http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1873486_1873491_1873461,00.html
-
Log in to reply.