More Lines of engagement
With the choice of either growth along the Interpersonal line or not established we can now move to addressing the typically easier Cognitive line (at least in Western cultures).
However, some common practices are available and only how they are deployed will be different.
However, some common practices are available and only how they are deployed will be different.
Cognitive Line
Cognitive progression in this context means solving problems both for themselves, individually, as well as the collective problems. I wouldn’t think it is necessary to progress many people here or very far for Western styled organizations. Instead build upon the openness and move in the direction of either co-creation or directing from what management feels will work best for the organization and most individuals. The more co-creation that is done, the more employees will be bought in. When employees are bought in, they are aligned more and it will release energy and productivity along common goals. Pacification and appeasement are more the flavor of edicts from on high based on employee engagement data (which rarely changes anything).
The decision made previously about how much input and control the employees have in the future dictates how to proceed from here. However, some common practices are available and only how they are deployed will be different. Gaining some additional capability in strategic planning and contingencies will go a long way in working with subjective problems that need to improve objective outcomes.
Moral Line
The last line to check lightly would be the Moral line. In this sense affirming what the organization and management believe ‘should be’ is the order of the day here. Depending on how much control is given to employees will determine how this line is worked with.
Two questions for management and practitioners to be mindful of are:
- How developed is the management team along the Moral line?
- How broad is the spectrum along the Moral line within the organization?
If management is not developed very much here they tend to be a collection of individuals doing things for their best personal benefit and the whole effort will probably devolve into an edict with no real change. If the management team is highly developed here but lacks sufficient development along the Cognitive and Interpersonal lines the endeavor is likely quite altruistic but lacks the necessary ability to align for mass action.
The second question is rarely inquired but certainly impacts an organization if employees are given more power in determining a resolution. Moral line disparity causes fracturing in a group unless it is being developed simultaneously. As various courses of action are discussed and debated, a broader spread tends to put people in camps ranging from ‘taking care of myself and family’ all the way up to ‘saving the world (or beyond!)’. A collective solution will not emerge without intervention and/or development along this and perhaps other areas.
Fracture at ‘Why?’
Lastly, if a more directive style in this regard is enforced, questions about why the course of action is being taken are likely to arise. Then individuals will opt in at various degrees based partly on their own Moral line development but likely this line will still be a point of fracture and linger in the background.
