What JFK learned about leadership from a NASA janitor
- Articulating a vision helps differentiate one leader and one organization from the next.
- Leaders should communicate a company mission that makes all team members feel their jobs are important.
- The observations of Karl Marx, JFK, and multiple analysts suggest that employees derive meaning from their work by providing real value to themselves, their company, or society at large.
Establishing a sense of direction, even a specific destination, has the potential to align people with a leader and develop a shared commitment that is equally important to everyone. It is the articulation of a vision that has the potential to differentiate one leader and one organization from the next. With so many companies competing in overlapping markets, with similar products and services, this direction and specific destiny might be the only things that make you distinct.
Strong direction at the leadership level of an organization builds cohesion toward a future state. This attracts people who don’t work in organizations just because of compensation or to fulfill some technical or experiential need. They do it because they believe in what the organization stands for and is trying to achieve. Their work has real meaning. It is the role of leaders to encourage and develop this.
When President Kennedy visited NASA at Cape Canaveral in 1962, he noticed a worker clearing leaves with a broom. Never one to miss an opportunity, he went to the employee and introduced himself with a question: “Hey, I’m Jack Kennedy. What are you doing?” Anyone who works in aviation will tell you that the presence of debris in the vicinity of accelerating aircraft can be destructive. The backdraft from engine thrust can suck the debris into the engines and cause catastrophic failure. This was the most obvious and logical answer to the president’s question, but the employee looked back at Kennedy and said, “I’m part of the team that’s going to put a man on the moon.”
When Gallup completed their research into employee engagement, they captured what came easily to JFK: “Does the mission and purpose of your company make you feel your job is important?” In asking the question, Gallup realized that it wasn’t knowledge of the organization’s mission and purpose that is important (although that’s a good starting point), it’s that employees can express this knowledge through the value they create in their own job. Sure, the employee at NASA is sweeping up leaves, but his value is much greater. He sees his job as critical to the mission of NASA, and he just happens to contribute through sweeping up leaves.
What had to happen for this employee to respond this way? It required leaders, starting at the top, articulating the organization’s values and mission in a way that helped each person realize why their job had real meaning and value. It’s a difficult challenge. Too often leaders focus on overly tactical communication — the what, how, and when. They lead and manage through tasks, projects, and activities. They value people who are busy in the belief that this makes them productive.
It seems that business leaders advocating the benefits of employee engagement are really closet Marxists. Who would have thought?
Fundamentally, they get the psychology of human motivation wrong. This focus on projects and tasks leaves the bigger questions unanswered: Why am I here rather than somewhere else? Is my contribution noticed and valued? Am I making a difference? Is our work meaningful to others? Exceptional leaders ensure that these questions are answered in a way that drives higher levels of engagement and commitment. People want to follow leaders like this.
Questions about meaning at work are not new. When writing about workplace alienation in his critique of capitalism, Karl Marx defined three contributing ingredients — the lack of a voice or influence, poor person-job fit, and perceived lack of meaningfulness at work. This doesn’t differ much from research analysis of the benefits of employee engagement (the flip side of alienation). Many of the most common measures of employee engagement reference the need for employees to derive meaning from their work by providing real value to themselves, their company, or the broader society. It seems that business leaders advocating the benefits of employee engagement are really closet Marxists. Who would have thought?
