Stop Motivating Your People! Employee Ownership as a Reciprocation of Leadership Responsibility - Event Report

Authored by Trevor Hudson, Tuff Leadership Development

Contrary to the prevailing wisdom in management schools and leadership development across the land, it isn’t the leader’s job to motivate people.

In fact, that’s just the beginning of the many things that leaders often take responsibility for, in very subtle ways, that are getting in the way of a thriving organisation. Based on my recent webinar for the ABP, this article explores the concept that responsibility, as most people experience it, is not a role or an action but a ‘way of being’ arising from mindsets and beliefs. This version of responsibility, which we at Tuff have found runs rampant amongst leaders (and parents, teachers, therapists, coaches, etc.), if left unchecked, creates a subtly more passive response in others – often resulting in leaders stepping in even more.

The Limitations of Data-Driven Approaches

The modern workplace is awash in data. Organisations gather vast quantities of information about their employees, hoping to unlock the secrets of engagement and productivity. Yet, despite this wealth of data, employee engagement remains stubbornly stagnant. Traditional approaches to employee engagement often rely heavily on data and organization-wide surveys. While these methods can help measure and highlight the importance of engagement, they often need to do more to create meaningful and sustainable change. This is because they treat engagement as an organisational problem to be solved from the top down rather than a fundamentally individual and contextual phenomenon.

The over-reliance on data can also create a disconnect between the “felt experience” of employees and the actions taken by leaders, leading to frustration and a sense of powerlessness. As highlighted in the 2024 Gallup report, the majority of variance in employee engagement stems from the manager, emphasising the importance of local context and individual relationships (Gallup, 2024).

Furthermore, the obsession with consistency and control, inherited from outdated paradigms, can stifle creativity, autonomy, and intrinsic motivation. We expect employees to be “human” at work while simultaneously demanding that their motivation and creativity fit neatly into rigid structures and schedules. This disconnect can be detrimental to employee well-being and engagement (Welch & Jackson, 2024) and is something that is explored at Netflix, for example (Hastings & Meyer, 2020).

The “Parent-Child” Paradigm: An Outdated OS

The webinar explored the concept that responsibility, as most people experience it, is not a role or an action but a ‘way of being’ arising from mindsets. At Tuff, we have found that many organisations operate within a subtle yet pervasive “parent-child” dynamic. This dynamic manifests in various ways, from leaders feeling solely responsible for “fixing” employee disengagement to employees feeling a lack of agency and ownership over their work.

This “parent-child” OS is often characterised by:

• Leaders driving the agenda: Even with good intentions, leaders may dominate conversations, focusing on their goals rather than truly listening and understanding the employee’s perspective.
• Reactive behaviours: Leaders may find themselves reacting defensively or judgmentally to employees’ ideas, revealing an underlying need for control.
• A “they just don’t get it” attitude: This reveals a lack of empathy and a belief that the leader knows best, hindering collaboration and mutual understanding.
• An over-reliance on expertise: Leaders may focus on demonstrating their authority rather than fostering a sense of partnership and shared responsibility.
• Showing up in a responsible way: Leaders are looking for ways in which they can solve problems, make people happy, get things done and, again subtly, are responsible in their ‘being’ – leading others to be subtly more passive.

We say this dynamic is not anyone’s fault; it’s simply a legacy of outdated management practices and deeply ingrained societal norms. However, it’s a dynamic that needs to be challenged and upgraded if we want to create truly engaging workplaces. Research suggests that fostering a sense of psychological safety, where employees feel comfortable taking risks and expressing their opinions, is crucial for engagement (Kahn, 1990). Not only that, but as Amy Edmonson acknowledges (but is also often left out when people relay her research) a high level of appropriate challenge is also needed for thriving (Edmonson, 2019). This combination of safety and challenge is characteristic of a more ‘adult-adult’ leadership and culture.

The “Adult-Adult” Paradigm: An Operating System (OS) Upgrade for the Future

To truly transform employee engagement, we must shift from the “parent-child” paradigm to an “adult-adult” approach. This new leadership model prioritises:

• Empowerment: Leaders trust their employees’ abilities and give them the autonomy to make decisions and take ownership of their work.
• Collaboration: Leaders create a culture of partnership and shared responsibility where everyone feels valued and heard.
• Focus on Potential: Leaders see the potential in every employee and provide opportunities for growth and development.
• Open Communication: Leaders foster a safe space for honest dialogue, feedback, and mutual understanding.

In other words, it is a profound shift from ‘the-leader-is-responsible’ to ‘the-leader-and-team-are’responsible’. Many people underestimate how profound this shift is and how personally challenging it can be. Again, the examples above can make it seem like we are suggesting people ‘do’ different things – and, of course, this is part of it. What often gets missed is that really doing empowerment (for example) means being empowerment. We can’t just wake up and decide. We need to practice and self-patrol. We must unearth our unhelpful mindsets that give rise to the old paradigm.

This “adult-adult” leadership style requires not only a shift in mindset and OS but also the adoption of new skills and practices (“apps”) that come from the upgraded OS and support empowerment and self-leadership. This might involve:

• Facilitating open communication and feedback: Being incredibly open with organisational data (self-managed organisations do this well) and giving tough feedback that comes with both compassion and frankness in abundance.
• Creating safety through listening: We maintain (and have yet to be proven wrong) that managers, leaders, consultants, and pretty much anyone, cannot truly listen. In the adult-adult world, giving, when appropriate, equal weight to your own thoughts and the internal reality of others provides access to an entirely new level of listening.
• Truly believing in others: In a way that comes from the being of the leader, this is showing up in a way that others have abundant potential (that even they haven’t realised) that they will step in and be responsible in the right conditions and that you, as a leader or coach, or ‘for them’ (you like them and wish them prosperity).

Leaders who successfully make this “OS upgrade” will be better equipped to create a workplace where employees feel engaged, motivated, and empowered to contribute their best work. This shift requires a collective effort to unlearn ingrained power dynamics and embrace a new way of interacting and leading. It is shifting from believing intellectually in MacGregor’s (1960) theory Y to actually ‘being’ it. It’s not about “fixing” employees but creating conditions for them to thrive. This aligns with Self-Determination Theory, which emphasises the importance of autonomy, competence, and relatedness for intrinsic motivation and engagement (Deci & Ryan, 2000).

The Consultant-Business Relationship: A Microcosm of Leadership Dynamics

The “parent-child” and “adult-adult” paradigms are not limited to internal leadership dynamics. They also play out in the relationships between consultants and their clients.

Traditionally, consultants have often been positioned as the “experts,” coming in to “fix” problems and provide solutions. This can create a dynamic where the client becomes dependent on the consultant, hindering their ability to develop their capabilities and take ownership of their challenges.

An “adult-adult” approach to consulting, on the other hand, emphasises collaboration, mutual respect, and shared responsibility. Consultants work alongside their clients as partners, empowering them to develop solutions and build internal capacity. This approach fosters a more sustainable and impactful relationship where both the consultant and the client benefit from shared learning and growth. More recently, in the UK, we have worked, for example, with HR partners (and partner-like HR roles) to step away from the ‘order-taker’ and ‘police’ dynamics that result from the parent-child paradigm.

Conclusion

By integrating insights from data with a bias towards the individual experience and embracing an “adult-adult” approach to leadership, organisations can create a genuinely engaging and fulfilling work experience for everyone. This requires a conscious effort to upgrade our “operating system,” challenging outdated paradigms and embracing a new era of leadership that prioritises empowerment, collaboration, and human potential. It requires an ‘unlearning’ at the individual and organisational level that can only happen over a very long period and evolution of the organisation or through intensive feedback and practice with someone trained to hear the ‘parent-child’ paradigm in people’s being.

References

• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268.
• Edmondson, A. C. (2019). The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. John Wiley & Sons.
• Gallup. (2024). State of the Global Workplace: 2024 Report. [Hyperlink to report if available]
• Hastings, R., & Meyer, E. (2020). No rules rules: Netflix and the culture of reinvention. New York: Penguin Press.
• Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692-724.
• McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. McGraw-Hill.
• Welch, M., & Jackson, P. R. (2024). The Psychology of Employee Engagement. Offshore Energies UK (OEUK). [Hyperlink to article if available]