In 2019, respected leadership consultant Peter Fuda wrote:
“Everyone accepts ‘we’ need to change; few accept ‘I’ need to change.
Organisations don’t change, people do, and leaders must go first.
There is no business transformation without leadership transformation.”
A significant amount of time and effort is spent attempting to encourage front-line staff to modify how they work, and interventions often place the onus on the individual to change, when in fact they have little influence on the environment in which they work. Leaders' actions have a greater impact on the success or failure of organisational performance, yet deeper understanding and awareness of this is limited. You can have the best strategy, a great structure, and great systems, yet leadership behaviour represents the accelerator or the handbrake for every performance ambition you might have. Organisations remain in the grip of pure management, where it’s believed the best way to operate is for the ‘higher-ups’ to decide what is required, and the ‘workers’ are then expected to implement. This traditional, industrial age thinking remains stubbornly wedded to the ideals of Frederick Winslow Taylor, the visionary who, around the beginning of the 20th century, transformed factory production processes and has become known as the father of scientific management who strived for the ‘one best way’ of doing things (Kanigel, 2005). This command-and-control method focussed solely on efficiency and productivity and had little consideration for the working lives of those who provided labour. This may have worked then but in our more progressive knowledge economy, teams and individuals in the workplace seek agency and self-determination, with motivation gained from intrinsic drivers rather than external instruction. Therefore, as we seek to introduce change, influence work processes, and improve outcomes, should we not be trying to learn more about our colleagues and their ‘eudaimonic’ drivers, and truly acknowledge that organisations don’t change, people do?
The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle initially introduced the concept of eudaimonia in 350 BC in his work "Nichomachean Ethics" exploring the idea of the ‘highest human good’. He argued that the pinnacle of human excellence isn't merely happiness; instead, it is about activities of the soul that are in accord with virtue and striving to achieve the best that is within us. In more modern language, Waterman (1993) urges individuals to live in harmony with their 'daimon’, or authentic self, suggesting that eudaimonia occurs when people’s life activities are most congruent with deeply held values. In the context of the modern workplace, achieving eudaimonia involves creating environments where teams can thrive personally and professionally. This comprehensive psychological state extends beyond mere job satisfaction or happiness; it encompasses a deeper sense of purpose, engagement, and fulfilment in one's work. Bartels et al. (2019) go on to define workplace eudaimonic well-being as "an employee's assessment of their capacity to develop and function optimally within the work environment". For healthcare teams, Flaming (2001) describes eudaimonia as helping patients achieve their own genuine happiness or flourishing, whatever that means for the individual patient.
Importantly, Maslach, Schaufeli & Leiter (2001) suggest that when the practical aspects of our job are inconsistent with our values and beliefs or fail to offer a chance to connect with our intrinsic motivations, it is likely that we will experience reduced feelings of accomplishment, ultimately resulting in emotional fatigue and stress.
Given the amount of time that we spend at work, eudaimonia and its relationships between happiness and performance are inadequately understood. The lack of understanding has resulted in proxy measures being used, such as employee engagement and job satisfaction to describe staff happiness. Additionally, workplace attempts to improve morale and well-being often use external hedonic drivers to affect satisfaction, leading to scepticism that these efforts are in fact intended to improve performance rather than a genuine desire to improve the working lives of staff. Whilst both hedonic and eudaimonic aspects have a role to play, it is eudaimonia that is self-generated and therefore provides greater levels of satisfaction and fulfilment.
So, as we seek to develop work change programmes, maybe it is time to make our starting point somewhere other than an action plan, standard operating procedure, project initiation document or key performance indicators. Whilst all these have their place, beginning with an understanding of the intrinsic motivations of the people who are closest to the work will have a greater impact on the long-term success and sustainability of the change. Shifting from an outcome-focused mindset to a better understanding of the human psychology of change and improvement may help unlock the perceived barriers to organisational development.
This mindset shift must start at the leader level. A respectful eudaimonic workplace culture is one that consistently supports its staff through thoughtfulness and curiosity. Leaders can inspire and motivate colleagues by articulating a clear vision, demonstrating genuine concern for their input, and fostering an inclusive and supportive environment that allows them to be as close to their authentic selves as possible. Encourage open and transparent communication channels where the team feel safe to voice their concerns, share ideas, provide feedback, and involve individuals in decision-making processes, particularly those that affect their work and well-being. This enhances a sense of control and investment in the change, and subsequently the team and wider organisation. Importantly, take the time to find the intrinsic motivations of those in the team, what makes them tick, and what does a good day at work look like?
Moreover, as we dig deeper into our awareness of the psychology that sits just below the surface of improvement efforts, we discover a greater understanding of potential barriers to change and why some people are resistant or apparently unwilling to engage. In complex socio-technical systems such as the workplace, it is not enough to expect people to do as they are told without question and indeed, there may be genuine, often misunderstood, reasons why some colleagues appear to be falling into that ‘difficult person’ box. Too often those who are perceived to resist change, or don’t engage are labelled as laggards, difficult or a barrier, but have we truly understood why this might be the case? Rarely have I met anyone who comes to work to do a bad job or sets out intentionally to be disruptive for no reason.
On many occasions, we will have observed poor behaviour or poor care standards in the workplace and will have been frustrated or dumbfounded how this can occur. Delivering safe, high-quality care requires appropriate working conditions that are understood and developed in terms of the physical environment and equipment, as well as the psychosocial factors at work. A better understanding of the individual’s psychosocial factors at work may help us dig deeper into our understanding of resistance to change, or supposedly poor attitude to work. Martinez & Fischer (2019) describe psychosocial factors as the dynamic interaction between the workplace environment and the human factors that may influence health, performance, and satisfaction at work. To understand the relationship between psychosocial effects and psychological well-being, we can draw on several models that help us understand the relationships between effort, reward, personal demands, how we naturally protect ourselves by conserving physical and cognitive resources, and how these are heightened in times of stress and uncertainty.
Central to the principles of Bakker & Demerouti's (2007) Job Demands-Resources model is the assumption that all occupations carry risk factors associated with job stress. The authors suggest that these factors can be drawn into two categories; job demands and job resources. Job demands relate to the physical, psychological, social, or organisational parts of the job and require cognitive and emotional effort. These, therefore, are associated with a degree of physiological and psychological demand. Job resources are the characteristics of a job that can be purposeful in achieving work goals, a moderator to reduce job demands, and a driver to develop personal growth, development, and learning.
Job resources can be associated with work conditions (e.g., pay, career opportunities, job security), interpersonal and social relations (e.g., supervisor and co‐worker support, team working), the organisation of work (e.g. role clarity, participation in decision making), and at the level of the task (e.g. skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, performance feedback). These factors are easily understood in isolation yet, by contrast, are infrequently understood in the context of the impact on job stress and willingness to participate in work change.
Sociologist Johannes Siegrist's (2016) effort-reward imbalance (ERI) model theorises that exposure to the recurrent experience of failed reciprocity at work increases the risk of stress-related disorders and depletion of energy resources. An example of this could be a healthcare professional who repeatedly experiences challenging and demanding patients who are not appreciative, or a supervisor or colleague who does not recognise effort. In these situations, a sustained disequilibrium exists whereby the healthcare professional continues to put more into the workplace interactions than they receive back, and research suggests that an imbalance of high effort and low reward is associated with burnout and the depletion of emotional resources (Bakker et al., 2000). This can lead to negative health outcomes, both mental and physical, undermining an individual's overall workplace well-being and job satisfaction. Imagine effort and reward as deposits and withdrawals from your emotional ‘bank account’. Over time, if you withdraw more than you deposit you will run out of money, resulting in eventual bankruptcy. Emotionally, this occurs to many when they see little reward in the work they are asked to perform each day.
Linked to both the JD-R and ERI is the Conservation of Resources (CoR) theory, which helps us understand a little more about why individuals appear to withdraw or disengage when placed in stressful or unfamiliar environments, or when demands, resources, effort and rewards are imbalanced.
The Conservation of Resources (CoR) theory, introduced by Dr. Stevan Hobfoll in 1989 posits that individuals strive to obtain, retain, and protect their resources, which are vital for managing stress as part of a natural evolutionary response. Resources are defined broadly to include objects, personal characteristics, conditions, and energies that are valued by individuals or that serve as means to obtain these valued objects, personal states, or conditions. Specifically, we can understand resources in the following way:
Object resources: Physical items that have value, such as tools, equipment, and facilities
Condition resources: Job conditions or statuses that provide benefits, such as employment, seniority, and tenure
Personal resources: Personal traits and skills, including resilience, self-efficacy, and competencies
Energy resources: These include time, money, and knowledge, which are crucial for acquiring other resources
The CoR theory emphasises two key principles: resource loss is more salient than resource gain, and individuals must invest resources to protect against resource loss, recover from losses, and further gain resources. This theory suggests that resource loss is disproportionately more impactful than an equivalent resource gain, leading to a potential spiral of loss where initial losses can result in further losses. In practical terms, the CoR theory has significant implications for understanding stress and coping mechanisms. For example, in the workplace, ensuring that employees have access to necessary resources such as social support, training, and time can reduce stress and enhance well-being. Conversely, resource depletion, such as excessive workload or lack of support, can lead to increased stress and burnout, as noted previously through the JD-R and EFI.
Therefore, as you approach innovation and improvement in your organisation, considering a different approach might result in the successful and sustainable change that you are seeking. The People-Centred Improvement Model (Figure 2) suggests that most improvement activity is focused only on the outcome with less effort applied to the contributory factors. The adage of ‘you don’t fatten a pig by weighing it’ applies here! At the tip of the pyramid, this outcome-focused approach yields the least return on investment, whereas as we progress through the elements of the model, we find increasingly greater levels of effectiveness in our change efforts. By starting with the people involved in the work (these also include our patients, clients, customers etc) we develop a deeper understanding of the psychology of change in those who it affects most.
Intrinsic, eudaimonic motivation in the workplace is more than a nice-to-do theoretical ideal; it is a practical and attainable ambition that requires a considered leadership approach to balance effort and reward while conserving and enhancing resources. By understanding and incorporating the principles of job-resource demand, effort-reward imbalance and conservation of resources, leaders can create environments where employees not only embrace change, they also lead fulfilling and meaningful lives. This, in turn, drives success, fostering an engaged, and productive workforce. As Virgin boss Richard Branson once said, “If you look after your staff, they’ll look after your customers. It’s that simple.”
References
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands‐resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328.
Bakker, A. B., Killmer, C. H., Siegrist, J., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2000). Effort–reward imbalance and burnout among nurses.
Journal of Advanced Nursing, 31(4), 884–891.
Bartels, A. L., Peterson, S. J., & Reina, C. S. (2019). Understanding well-being at work: Development and validation of the eudaimonic workplace well-being scale.
PloS One, 14(4), e0215957.
Flaming, D. (2001). Using phronesis instead of ‘research‐based practice as the guiding light for nursing practice.
Nursing Philosophy, 2(3), 251–258.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513.
Kanigel, R. (2005). The one best way: Frederick Winslow Taylor and the enigma of efficiency. MIT Press Books, 1.
Martinez, M. C., & Fischer, F. M. (2019). Psychosocial factors at hospital work: Experienced conditions related to job strain and effort-reward imbalance.
Revista Brasileira de Saúde Ocupacional, 44.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job Burnout.
Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 397–422. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397
Siegrist, J. (2016). Chapter 9 - Effort-Reward Imbalance Model. In G. Fink (Ed.),
Stress: Concepts, Cognition, Emotion, and Behavior (pp. 81–86). Academic Press. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-800951-2.00009-1
Waterman, A. S. (1993). Two conceptions of happiness: Contrasts of personal expressiveness (eudaimonia) and hedonic enjoyment.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(4), 678.
Commentaires