Despite all the mechanisms and programs, alignment comes down to individuals. Stage manager, Blake Hall confidently claims, “It always works.” Getting and growing talent is the key factor in alignment, and the implication is clear - - organizations need to seriously revisit their talent strategies, and perhaps, dramatically, change their ways. Lip service will not cut it. The most impressive and expensive programs in leadership development will not make a difference until organizations are willing to reinvent or at least modify, antiquated performance management systems.

 

Companies that have equal tracks for individual contributors and managers are rare. When you take a person out of their sweet spot, their talent becomes less optimized, and consequently this erodes individual meaningfulness, drive, motivation, and ultimately performance. In theatre, an actor does not have to become a director, producer, or set designer. Growing as a great actor, staying where they are passionate, is fine.

 

Steven Taylor PhD, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, is a well-known and respected pioneer in organizational aesthetics. Here is his response to my thoughts (personal communication):"I started to wonder if we haven't made all of this more complex than it is. Perhaps what we see in theater isn't about alignment or ensemble in any way that could be re-created because at its core it is simply a case of people doing something they really love. And in business, we generally don't have people doing something they really love. And as long as you don't have people doing work they believe is deeply meaningful, work they love for its own sake, you're not going to get the synergy and collaboration (or alignment)." 

 

I submit engaged employees love their work and do it well. They move enthusiastically in the same direction. Financial incentives, pale miserably as a source of motivation compared to the intrinsic factors of passion, competency, enjoyment and meaningfulness. Disengaged employees are benchwarmers: they are lost opportunities. Feeling proud and connected to your work pays off for the organization, because the individual, who feels this way, usually feels equally connected and proud of their organization. And this kind of corporate identity and pride is powerful toward achievement and performance.

 

A striking example would be Delta Airlines. Similar to The Home Depot and The Coca Cola Company, Delta fell prey to poor leadership and decision-making. All three companies suffered from increasing low employee morale and sagging customer relations. However, Delta brought back Grinstein, a well-liked and effective leader. He had a formidable task, and it was not easy. Delta employees at all levels were angry, bitter, and feeling betrayed. They were difficult to negotiate with - - until, the US Air bid. With that bid, the landscape changed. Now it was not about money, it was about corporate identity. Within a day or two, thousands of Delta employees rallied to Grinstein’s side, and switched positions on several financial issues. The union was now contributing to the legal fees to fight US Air, as opposed to fighting with their parent company.

 

That is the power of employee pride and identity. They had a personal stake in the ground. And they gave up whatever their individual desires were at that moment for the whole. That is the essence of theatre every day. 

 

Leaders in every organization play a large role. They set the culture in place. They are responsible for protecting it. Bad leadership is awful. Sadly, too many corporate leaders are for themselves. Their package. Their future. Wall Street is littered with their debris.

 

Mira Hirsch says a “great director collects what they are bringing.” Susan Booth explains the director, “must harvest all the voices in the room to establish a common language, and know how to stand behind the cast and audience and not between.”  A leader, like a director, is a teacher, assembler, enabler. And like directors, they need to put in motion a casting and harvesting process, integrated and targeted to gleaning the best performance of the individuals for the whole - - the play, the performance, the production. Directors know this, and provide a rich source of insight.

 

In the end, an organization's success is dependent on the talent and attitude of its employees, who embrace interdependency and naturally align with organization goals - - employees who have an individual stake in the ground for organizational success. I suggest there are several action steps business leaders can take inspired by lessons from theatre.

 

Organizations can begin by assessing their culture and standardized policies and procedures to determine what is helping and hindering their quest for talent; to identify what is within their reach to change or not; what they will actually do to close the gap between rhetoric and willingness to act; whether or not they will align their rhetoric with their appetite and wallet. Absent willingness to make requisite system changes, organizational rhetoric proclaiming to become a best in class talent management organization can render empty and fall prey to a being a trend, a flavor of the month. Reaping the rewards of a talented cast will belong to companies committed to engaging people in work they are good at, want to do, and the organization needs done. Exploring and changing antiquated systems requires courage.

 

Pursuing a path to optimal talent management begins with clearly identifying what work needs to get done and what talent the organization needs to accomplish the work. These behavioral models are translated into recruitment strategy. People are sought after, cast, because of their demonstrated talent, or potential: not their pedigree or alumni connections. Interviews are rigorous and consistent; they are not company sales jobs. Some of this work has begun in the form of behavioral interviewing and targeted selection. The problem in my experience is organizations stop short of demanding the same rigor for internal promotions, as they do for external hiring.

 

The front end of recruitment needs to be balanced with an ongoing development process that allows for multiple career paths, each of which enjoys similar financial and influence opportunities. I urge organizations to accept the fact many people can be fantastic, talented individual contributors, but make for lousy managers. And, in the same vein, some great managers are not, and should not be forced to subject matter experts.

 

Onboarding new employees, or employees who have been promoted, is an additional key process that would facilitate engagement. This process supports acculturation and works to diminish transition disruptions. I assert the entire process of recruitment, selection, promotion, and rewards, align individual talents and organizational needs - - not artificial organizational charts and ladders. The traditional structure offers the majority of organizational members few choices - - climb the corporate ladder, linger in unfulfilling roles or leave the organization. And in all cases, engagement and therefore performance, is compromised.

 

This is not new information. However, I believe what I have learned about the inner workings of theatre offers new imperatives for change. Eighty percent of artistic success in theatre resides in casting. This notion cannot and should not be ignored by business organizations.

 

Senior leadership makes a huge difference in enhancing employee engagement. It begins with their understanding the importance of reaching out to the moderately engaged employees: the ones who trek the journey to the destination they have determined. Leaders who legitimately yearn for engaged employees are prepared to be known and vulnerable; prioritize and invest in people development; and ensure Human Resource and Organization Development leaders are sitting at the senior leadership table. I encourage leaders look in the mirror and ask, what have I done to keep employees engaged?

 

I recommend senior leadership walk the floor of their organizations, probing to learn how most employees view their work world. With this insight, senior leaders will learn strategies for retention are not the same as strategies for engagement. Financial perks do not motivate engagement. Engagement is intrinsic and emotional, and emotion is a stronger catalyst for action than money. Leadership will remove the obstacles to employee engagement, and they cannot do this from the penthouse floor.

 

Enlightened organizations will accept the realities that define the work force today. People move around. They are more loyal to their careers, than to any given company. Consequently, I encourage organizations to do everything in their power to optimize talent when it resides in the organization; and provide ways for people to exit well.

 

These are a few of the ways organizations can grow and sustain a culture of learning and engagement.

 

My study screamed that people doing something they love, are good at, and is valued by the larger enterprise, fosters collaboration, trust, care, flexibility, accountability, creativity, experimentation, candor, and fun. Employee engagement holds the promise of the ultimate prize for employers today. Organizations would be wise not to ignore the fact over fifty percent of their work force is a neutral body in a chair. Successful business performance relies on capturing the hearts and minds of employees; successful business performance relies on the alignment borne out of engaged employees.

 

Artistic success in theatre relies on two intangible cultural assets, passion and a commitment to a shared goal. I urge organizations to get off the soapbox trying to instill or cajole employee engagement, and instead enact structures, policies, and processes which accept engagement is largely intrinsic, self-directed and highly emotive; behaviors which cannot be demanded, only nurtured. Fostering engagement remains a choice for every business organization, every employer.

 

Skeptics may claim that a typical business culture is too different from theatre, dooming my recommendations. I would argue this claim is a cop out. I agree it may be easier for a start up enterprise to create a stronger talent infrastructure, than it would be for a more established business. However, changing and aligning a large organization is an incremental effort. Failing to act at all is certain to ensure compromised results.

 

When we look at what we do in business, as performance art, another opportunity is at our fingertips. Not a cookie-cutter model, but an organic metaphor that offers a familiar frame of reference and language, which can spark new ways of thinking about work. I think business has a lot to learn from theatre, and I think we have only just begun.

 

Performance is a work in progress.