If you agree that too little effort is spent on creating networks that increase the bottom line … you’ll also likely agree that broken system neglect social interactions.
The opposite is also true.
Successful firms specialize more in community-building than do their losing counterparts that promote isolation.
In the same way, progressive organizations foster more interactive engagement while leaders do most of the talking in less productive firms.
You’ll likely find strong gender equity at firms that go places today, as compared to the limiting favoritism that sinks dying organizations.
In the same way, cultural inclusion is usually practiced across winning organizations … while exclusion characterizes less successful workplaces.
Not surprisingly far more mutual respect is reported in high-performance work environments … while clients and employees complain of disrespect in failing firms.
What would it take to move broken social systems at your firm into the kind of social networks that help improve the bottom line? You can usually find answers to that question by rating your workplace intelligence for growth?
Although I've never thought of this before, it does make sense that the more open and equal organizations fare better. After all, the outside openness of an organization probably mirrors the internal openness - which, along with gender equality, greatly affects the company is like to work at. I'm guessing the older closed model employers are also less supportive of their workers.
All in all, that creates a more appealing working environment at the more open workplaces - which attracts the best talent, and causes them to perform better than in traditional organizations.
Interesting thing to think about!
Posted by: Katie Konrath | July 23, 2008 11:15 AM | Permalink to Comment