After more than fifty-five years of working, I retired. We sold our house and moved to a condo complex on a ridge that overlooks New York City. On the rare clear morning that I am up early enough to view the sunrise the view is sometimes like the one above.

In my retirement, I write, to share what I learned, in life, yes, but so far, mostly what I have learned in business, in the world of work. It strikes me now that my observations are like my view of the skyline, distant, from above and afar.

A lot has changed, since I left the world of work.

Covid shocked everyone into a self-employment mindset, working from home, luxuriating in autonomy, and flexibility. Let’s be clear, some people can be productive, maybe even more productive in this setting than in the office. Some cannot.

Managers, used to turning around to offload a task on a whim, hate that they can’t do that with people no longer a carpet-covered-cube-wall away. Zoom and Microsoft Teams don’t replace proximity. Some managers who once described “culture” as “those plastic tubs of white stuff in the fridge” are missing the “glue that binds us together.” I read that rockstar CEOs are surprised and angry at staff resistance to BTW and “5-days-in-office” initiatives.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) arrived on the scene and is widely adopted by many corporations. I read about massive reductions-in-force and flatter organizations in the tech world, financial services, universities, consulting, and other white-collar-cubicle-warrens, and I wonder if those layoffs might have gotten out ahead of the productivity gains from AI.

I hear from friends and the children of friends who are still in the workforce, that some are being pressured to “work-faster-use-AI more” to the degree that AI bot data analysis isn’t checked or AI written reports aren’t fact-checked or edited. Some managers are being encouraged to save time by using AI bots to plan out “difficult conversations” and performance reviews. One friend told me that with layoffs he has “gone from five to twelve direct reports and without his evening Chat GPT ‘coach’ sessions” he’d be lost. I wonder if he’s missing the new ideas that emerge from disagreements, or if “generic” performance management is effective.

Another friend sent me a Substack article trying to make sense of the recent Gallup survey. It seems that “employee engagement,” after climbing from the 2009 post-Financial Crisis level of 12% to the “stratospheric” level of 23% post-Covid, has now declined a percentage point per year for the last two years running. Gallup maintains:

Gallup meta-analyses over the years have consistently shown a strong relationship between employee engagement and business-unit productivity, including profitability and sales.

Last year, low engagement cost the world economy approximately $10 trillion in lost productivity, or 9% of GDP.

Managers show even more engagement decline, a result that (surprise) shows strong correlation with the decline in staff engagement. I also wonder if the use of the term “employee,” actually adds to people disengaging. After all, “employee,” means “the used,” and human resources equates the loyal Denise or Dennis with materials inventory.

Gallup says “one way to think about employee engagement is readiness for change.” I would assert that engagement is a measure of how managers are leading the change and the evidence isn’t promising.

I wrote Change Leader? Who Me? to share what I learned observing leaders who successfully lead change in their organizations. Here is some of what I learned:

• Leaders are clear about the reasons for change, (and why not changing is NOT an option).
  • They are transparent about this.
  • They are patient while others catch up to the insight driving change and learn new knowledge and skill.
• Leaders help followers choose to change. They know it isn’t something you can force.
• The best leaders lead by example. They engage new technologies or change methodologies. They engage, participate and measure themselves as well as others.
• Change leaders are patient with the starts and stops of change.

Writing this book, I differentiated between different types of change:

• Innovation ̶  implementing a new product or process,
• Integrating ̶  making it business as usual,
• Improving ̶   making it better-faster-cheaper.

Each type of change has different processes, and requires different capabilities of leaders. It’s a little scary to me when I hear about managers being encouraged to outsource their connections to their people to an AI bot. What could go wrong with that? ☹

I found that getting through any drastic change required leaders who were clear about what wasn’t changing. In my experience, these leaders were values-driven. They lived their life by one or two principles that colored everything they did. I gave some unusual examples in the book:

• A cigar-chomping booking agent whose care for his people, and always doing what was right overrode his at times abrasive personality.
• A one-time locomotive engineer, who preached self-reliance and respect for the work of others.
• An introverted oil production manager, whose passion for safety improvement, connection to people, and ability to admit when he was wrong had followers willing to walk through fire for him.

I used Genghis Khan and Bruce Sprinsteen examples to show that even the unexpected have something to teach us.

I imagine that the magnitude of change in the workplace today, even viewed at a distance “from the Ridge,” would be made easier by leaders, driven by fairness and autonomy for followers, steeped in priority and focus, and who engendered trust.

As I was told by my Boy Scout Leader, Ed Hoxie, the first servant leader I encountered,

“People don’t follow your voice prints; they follow your footprints.”

I write books for the exceptions to the rule, “the young won’t listen and the older don’t read.”