Joy at Work: A Revolutionary Approach To Fun on the Job (Pocket Wisdom)

by Dennis W. Bakke

I believe the best and most appropriate response to most mistakes in life and within an organization is to admit the error, ask forgiveness, and promise to try not to make the same mistake again.

Firing is appropriate when people do not accept responsibility for transgressions and refuse to ask forgiveness.

Rewards can take many forms. Honors, promotions, and the esteem of colleagues count for a lot. However, compensation is the most important reward in every organization except voluntary associations. As I have already pointed out, compensation usually does not have a major effect on increasing joy at work. It is a reward for work accomplished, not a predictor of future happiness. You should not expect to enjoy work more because you are given a significant pay raise. If the workplace is miserable, the people who work there are likely to push for extra pay to compensate for the drudgery they have to endure. I am convinced, for example, that assembly-line jobs command much higher pay than warranted by the skills of the employees because the work is boring and even demeaning.

Everyone should be made eligible for bonuses and stock options, just like bosses.

The first big question was whether individual compensation information should be kept confidential. Roger Sant and I both advocated transparency on compensation matters, something that we felt was consistent with our idea that all important financial information should be shared among AES employees.

Many leaders did not like having to explain why one person was paid more than another. I responded that responsibleleaders should be able to give a legitimate reason for all decisions they make, including those involving compensation.

One of AES’s most innovative leaders, Paul Stinson, rejuvenated the experiment to let people set their own compensation levels.

First, the members of a group put together a plant budget that was consistent with their business plan. The budget had a line item for the total compensation expense for the entire staff. They decided that the total compensation paid to everyone in the plant could not exceed the budgeted number. A task force from the plant had already researched comparable pay levels in the area where the plant was located. That information was shared with everyone in the plant.

Each individual was asked to propose his or her own salary for the year ahead and then to send the proposal to every other person in the plant for comment. After a weeklong comment period, each person made a decision on his or her own compensation. When the amounts were tallied, the sum exceeded the budget, but not by much. As it turned out, only one person had settled on a pay level substantially higher than others of comparable responsibility, skill level, and experience had. He was also one of the few who had not followed the advice of colleagues to adjust his pay. After he was given this information, he agreed to reduce his proposed salary, and the revised compensation total allowed the plant to meet its original budget.

The individuals who participated in this approach were changed by the process. They had a much better understanding of how compensation affected the overall economics of the organization. They learned the value of seeking advice when they had to balance competing interests. They put the interests of other stakeholders on a par with or even ahead of their own. The process pulled team members together and helped some make the

transition from workersto business people. It made them “owners” of their business. For the first time, they understood what it meant to be stewards. This method of setting compensation was stressful, successful, and fun.

Organizational discipline is the glue of a successful workplace. By discipline I mean self-discipline. I am not referring to punishment or holding someone accountable. Discipline means making important decisions and carrying out everyday responsibilities in good weather and bad, whether you’re sick or well, and even when you’ve been asked to simultaneously perform other duties.

Leaders serve an organization rather than control it.

Moral leaders serve an organization rather than control it. Their goal is to create a community that encourages individuals to take the initiative, practice self-discipline, make decisions, and assume responsibility for their actions.

One of the most difficult lessons I have had to learn is that leadership is not about managing people. People are not resources or assets to be managed.

The most important character traits of a leader who embraces the principles and values championed in this book are humility; the willingness to give up power; courage; integrity; and love and passion for the people, values, and mission of the organization. It is not essential to be a great visionary. A leader must communicate a vision, but that vision can come from a colleague or someone outside the organization. Nor does a leader have to be an accomplished strategist or analyst. Again, strategy and analysis can be undertaken by others inside or outside the organization. A leader doesn’t even have to be an effective communicator.

“Beware of bosses who treat subordinates differently than superiors”

Finally, a leader doesn’t even have to be inspirational.

There are historical anomalies—demagogues who somehow move people by force of their personalities—but people usually possess the motivation, discipline, and inner strength to act in a way that is true to themselves. The role of leaders is to create an environment that allows these qualities to flourish.

The most important aspect of this leadership style is letting others make important decisions.

When that happens, leaders dignify and honor their subordinates. At the moment power is shared, everyone is in a position of equality. People feel needed and valued because they are needed and valued.

No person is freer and stronger than one who has faced the worst possible consequences—in this case, the chance of gettingfired—and decided, “I am going to do it anyway.”

Leaders can’t serve the people under them without spending time with them. They need to visit them often.

Early in AES’s history, we brought AES people and their spouses from our business units around the world, without regard to rank or time of service, to the company’s home office in the United States. Our intent was that every person would have at least one chance to connect with the people in the home office, as well as with colleagues in other locations.

Dave McMillen sometimes introduced me to his people by saying, “You can be sure of how Dennis will come out on an issue because his beliefs, actions, and words both here and at home are nearly always in sync.”

I believe that leaders have three main roles. They are responsible for interpreting the organization’s shared values and principles. They are senior advisers to everyone in the organization. And they are the collective conscience, pushing the

organizationto reach its goals and live up to its ideals.

I suggest that leaders exercise tight control only on issues that affect the shared values of an organization.

These shared beliefs are the bedrock of an organization’s sense of community. They are the glue that holds everything together. All other decisions, including those with major financial implications, should be delegated to the team members who are closest to the matter under consideration.

To minimize the number of times they must intervene in decisions about values, leaders must devote a lot of time and energy to instilling them throughout the organization.

I believe that leaders, as well as board members, should be consulted on all important matters.

When a member of my team fails to hold himself responsible for poor results, I believe I have failed as a leader.

I do know that goals and missions tend to shape the behavior of organizations and the people in them.

Selecting a mission is crucial because it becomes an organization’s definition of success.

every modern, progressive, and socially responsible organization should strive to achieve three goals: ♦ To serve society with specified services or products; ♦ To operate in an economically sustainable manner; ♦ To achieve these results while rigorously adhering to a defined set of ethical principles and shared values.

When a company gives a high priority to serving society, its employees are energized.

If serving society is given the same priority as creating value for stakeholders, it will most likely change the behavior of corporate leaders in a positive way.

Corporate values are worthless unless they are: (1) shared by the majority of people in the organization, (2) lived with some consistency by leaders, (3) considered at least equal to economic criteria in all major decisions of the organization, (4) taught to employees by senior leaders at every opportunity, and (5) constantly communicatedto people and stakeholders outside the organization, including shareholders.

Three purposes or goals—service to society, economic health, and ethical values—should drive a company in equal measure.

The most important questions in business are often never asked: What is our motive? What is our purpose? Are they worthwhile?

The most important questions in business are often never asked: What is our motive? What is our purpose? Are they worthwhile?

The most commonly proposed way to overcome an employee’s distaste for making decisions is to “train” him. I have already mentioned my strong preference for education over training and for giving the employee, rather than the organization, responsibility for learning. I recommend that training be used sparingly. I also believe that learning how to make decisions is far more rapid when it takes place on the job while a person is actually doing it. When this happens, trainers become coaches, mentors, and friends. It is an education process that makes the workplace more effective and more fun. Top-down classroom training, by contrast, is just another form of control that limits freedom in the working environment.

Arbitrary prerequisites for jobs are a terrible way to decide when a person is ready to take on positions of responsibility.

People generally know best when they’re ready to take on a particular responsibility and, in the process, contribute to the team.

Intelligence and education are not as important as an organizational culture that treats people of every background as

creative, capable, responsible and trustworthy.

I found that a place with too few people is likely to be a much more fun place to work than one that has too many.

leading business analysts suggest that a decentralized approach creates a much higher probability of economic success.

Everyone should be shifted from hourly wages and overtime pay to a flat salary.

Making work fulfilling and fun did not cause individuals to make business mistakes that injured the company. On the other hand, it did not prevent the company from making mistakes.