Leadership and “happy” organization

Have you ever wondered what the ultimate goal of an organization is?

ceteris paribusToday’s management will conclusively respond that organization strives to achieve only one ultimate goal: to become a profit oriented “machine”. That is why the key device of modern management is in lowering costs: pushing on suppliers’ side, on employees, on product development and production, to name just some. But is this “ceteris paribus” solution, focusing only on one parameter and all other things being equal or held constant, sustainable in long term? Or it spirally aims down and not up? Cost reduction – instead of cost optimizing in an economic system causes the only possible outcome – less money in circulation. The customers are also reducing and optimizing their costs according to their income.

profitHow often have we heard that people are the biggest asset of a company? They, on the other hand, are costs. If they work, they produce cost, if they attain a training program it is again cost, if they visit a customer ... costs. How differently people are treated from tools that for us represent the investment. But the smallest football club in the league knows that buying a player is not a cost – it is an asset, an investment. And they treat him accordingly. Not so in many modern companies. By, among other things, ignoring this, leads us to risky situations far away from the business objectives. There is a Gallup-poll of a 1.5 million sampling, and the result is: 30% of employees are happy with their managers, 20% are not, and 50% have disengaged themselves in having any feelings at all.

What if the main goal of an organization changes? Into sustainability or a long term endurance of an organization. It would be an organization where leaders create the ways and employees create the environment in which “each” individual receives recognition of what he/she does. In these uncertain economic times, imagine a worker being treated as an investment of the company. The leader sits him/her down and listens, praises where applicable, recognizes the achievements and places them in a position to do what they are good at. A leaders’ choice is not between task or people orientation. The real decision is in how to motivate people to achieve the task. Surveys have confirmed that a positive climate stimulates people to do more, it improves performance up to 30% and, particularly, if the employees are “happy”, the productivity can rise as high as 31% above the average. Then a “happy” organization is achievable. Beyond doubt, the owner of a company will make sure that a good care is taken with employees otherwise the total capital of a company will decrease?

Achieving these goals means following some of the unconventional best practices: among them issuing clear-sight and instructions to delivering inspirational speeches, to structuring the right financial and psychic incentives and to know the inner motivation of each individual. There is a great need for a new type of re-training and approaches.


  1. While the views are somewhat ideal, and hence difficult to find takers. Most of the CEOs got the position because of the numbers they could show/produce to Board and not because of leadership they gave to organisations or people. Therefore, while leadership by virtue is desirable there is an inherent contradiction in the theory. It requires the leaders to change once they reach a level which is very difficult- they have to unlearn ( what got them there ) and learn a fresh. The million dollar question is who has the time and need for the same ?

    1. Imagine if most of 70% of employees, that are now under-performing, would start to work better? Would numbers still matter or would be higher? I turn your million question into: who would not aim for win-win situation as opposed to current win-lose to gain more?


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.