Conclusion – Imagine the unimaginable. Chapter 7 of "How Google Works"

Technology driven change is outpacing the ability to train people in new skills putting unprecedented pressure on companies and societies. The technology is disrupting most known mature industries. In the preindustrial era the upper-class household was the centre of economic activity replaced by the corporation after the industrial revolution. In the 21^st century the corporation is being replaced with The Platform. A platform does not have a one way relationship with is customers and suppliers. There is a lot more of give and take – a place to connect like amazon.

Companies have a choice. They can operate the way they have always operated and only use technology to optimise their current operations or they can view it as the powerful force of disruption that it really is. Technology and innovation should be high on the CEO’s agenda.

Innovation means change and for many companies status quo is a much more comfortable place to be. At a corporate level most innovation initially looks like very small opportunities to a large company – not worth the time and effort. At the individual level people within big companies aren’t rewarded for taking risks but are penalised for failure. The payoff is asymmetrical so the rational person opts for safety.

The very nature of big companies is to be risk adverse and attack big change like the body attacks an infection. Google itself did well in Web 1.0 that was based on viewing text and images and basic transactions. It also thrived in Web 2.0 where is became a gigantic shopping mall and a place where people could do all sorts of things including complex transactions but was itself disrupted by Web 3.0 - the social and mobile web.

The solution is to always ask yourself the hardest question. Understand what to do about the future, what you see for the business others may not see or sees and choose to ignore.

“I keep my attention on the questions I need to ask so that I can catch the issues of the future” Clayton Christensen.

CEO´s should not only focus on the core business but also on the future. Companies rarely fold because of operational issues but more often because of a technological disruption of their industry. The question is not to ask what will be true but what could be true.

Do customers love your products or are they locked in by other factors that might evaporate in the future? Do your decision making processes lead to the best decision or the most acceptable?

Governments would benefit of including support for the disruptive elements of business, but tend to do the opposite and defend the incumbents as they have power, money and many workers. Tesla did not only fight the incumbent automakers but also the government that tried to prevent Tesla to sell directly to consumers.

Google believe in the power of technology and its ability to make the world a better place. Most big problems are information problems that can be solved with enough data and the ability to crunch it.

Google believe the technological disruption is a gift even if it means that somebody someday would create a technology that eventually renders Google irrelevant. Some might find this chilling but Eric Schmidt and Jonathan Rosenberg finds it inspiring.

Employee engagement is not something you do to people – it is something you do with people.

For many years the logic behind the service profit chain has dominated the way corporations treat their employees. The theory behind service profit chain suggests that satisfied employees create satisfied customers that in return stay loyal and affect corporate results. 

This has changed with recent Gallup research that was unable to verify the link between employee satisfaction and results. It could have been that satisfaction used to give corporations an advantage, but failed to do so today. It could be that satisfaction has turned into a qualifying rather than a winning attribute of the organisation. 

Gallup did however identify a clear link between corporate results and employee engagement. The “Employee satisfaction” concept has its roots in fulfilling of employee’s needs, wants and aspirations and is seen as something the corporation does for its employees. As such it is, for the employee a passive arrangement, where the corporation can decide what rewards it is willing to offer in return for the employee staying with the corporation. 

The psychological contract between employer and employees is not limited to tangibles, but has been seen mainly as a rational agreement and as such something corporations impact though HR activities, predominantly compensation and benefits. Satisfaction can be improved by job safety, promotions, empowerment, appraisals, communication and similar activities focused on the employee and the job role.

The problem is that money and benefits above a certain existential minimum does not motivate people to do more as Gallup proved – the path to improved performance is not though increases in tangible benefits – but through an increase in engagement. So the bravest of HR departments has turned to measuring Employee engagement.

As in Gallup’s engagement surveys, most employee engagement survey show significantly lower results than satisfaction surveys, something that suggests a problem. No doubt a lot of management teams like the old satisfaction survey that could be done and ticked easily without rocking the boat. 

The new engagement survey could be seen as a threat and not as an opportunity to gain competitive advantage. The other problem for the HR departments are that where employee satisfaction can be improved through systems and programs focusing on the lower part of the organisations, improving employee engagement is a completely different game. 

Although in HR’s areas of influence - key elements in creating engagement, like personal growth and developments are a hard sell for HR in a rational skills focused world. Other areas of creating engagement are outside the reach of HR.

The newest neurological research of human behavior and decision making processes has firmly established the important roles that both emotions and social context plays as powerful modulators of what was once believed to be a predominantly rational process, which put us apart from the animals. 

The Merriam-Webster’s definition of engagement: “emotional involvement or commitment”, confirms this is true for creating engagement also. Research suggests that engagement is influenced by the level of which employees identifies themselves with the organisation. The purpose, vision and leadership of the organisation play a vital role in engaging employees and the connection is emotional.

Why the corporation exist and what its purpose is become a potential powerful source of employee engagement. Unfortunately the post crisis corporations have had so much focus on improving profits that they have forgotten that creating profits is not a strategy – it is an outcome of a successful strategy.

Organisations that want to survive and thrive will eventually need to focus on a higher purpose that improves the situation of customers, employees and other stakeholders than just shareholders.

So employee engagement is not just something that can be designed by a HR department and injected into the workforce, it is about changing the fabric of the department or the corporation itself.

Employee engagement is not just about improving, it is about transformation. To transform people you need to transform the organisation and its purpose and goals. Visionary companies know this.