The Life-Giving Workforce Design Model
A thought-provoking piece of work by Barry J Halm.
I’m not sure why the Life-Giving Workforce Design (LGWD) Model isn’t better known. Perhaps it’s because the author of the eponymous 2011 paper, Barry J. Halm of the University of Minnesota, died before it was published. Or maybe it is that the paper is written in an academic style that is off-putting to many practicing managers.
Anyhow, I am going to see if I can make it more accessible in this article. See what you think.
The model is based on the study of the regional office (“RO”)of a professional services company with 50 offices in 9 countries. During the period July 2004 to June 2007 the office became group leader in the metrics for employee engagement, employee retention, client satisfaction, revenue and operating profit (2004: 6th, 6th, 8th, 8th, 12th).
Halm undertook a post hoc investigation of what had happened at the RO to induce such superior performance. The RO employed 120 professional staff, of which 23 were randomly selected to participate in the interviewing process. The study was directed towards four areas of interest: organisational culture, leadership, employee engagement and operating systems.
From the initial observations and finding, 22 patterns emerged, which were grouped into seven themes, which were eventually related to the four areas of interest. The outcome is represented in the diagram below.
Halm writes “In this study, the LGWD was constructed by an appreciative culture and was supported by liberating leadership methods and sustainable operating systems that generated employee engagement, resulting in extraordinary changes in performance.”
Halm considered the inter-relatedness of the areas of interest central to the success of the model. He contended that it was the synergies between them that led to the exceptional performance of the business.
Let’s take a closer look.
Liberating Leadership
Halm describes a pattern of “nurturing management practice” based upon the values of “respect and compassion.” There were further patterns of mentoring and coaching and also of participative and democratic principles. The MD articulated a clear vision and expectations and then gave his directors and managers the headroom they needed to deliver on them.
This style was appropriate and highly successful because the employees were highly experienced, goal oriented and many had worked for the business for some time. One interviewee said “Our MD is really refreshing because he truly gives his directors the freedom to make the right decisions. I can always count on him that whatever decision I make, he will support it and he will support whatever resources I need to get the job done.”
Appreciative Culture
The leadership team was focused on human connection. Interviewees talked about integrity, teamwork and work-life balance. Teamwork was characterised by open communication and whole-team involvement. The flat structure of the business meant that teams could respond rapidly to change in order to meet client needs.
The collaborative energy of the business was supported by camaraderie, employee engagement, appreciation and coaching/facilitating management. One interviewee said “The feeling is not just with me but with all of us. I think one of the reasons our turnover rates are very low is exactly because we value our people.”
Authentic Engagement
The recruitment of second careerists was key to meeting the needs of the organisation’s clients through experience, knowledge and a dedication to professionalism. The organisation followed the Duke Ellington Principle (see my article of 21st February 2019 on Medium) in selecting people who could both play its music and loved the idiom.
The business made a point of valuing the individual through open and frequent communication. Allied to this was the principle that individuals were assigned to work strategically, that is to projects that were a good fit with their experience, and leaders were chosen on the basis of the ‘best man for the job’, ensuring that power was distributed.
An entrepreneurial spirit in the organisation was enabled by the autonomy granted to the board by the MD, and in turn to employees by the board — an example of a non-hierarchical approach cascading down.
Sustainable Systems
This was an organisation that took care of its people in order to take care of its customers — see People, Product and Profit. The committed workforce created by the first three areas led to high levels of customer satisfaction. One interviewee said “The organisation is about procuring the knowledge that is required to go deep into a corporation and become a trusted advisor.”
The paper notes, without going into much detail, that the formal systems of the business included performance management and evaluation, employee recognition and reward and organisational performance monitoring and benchmarking.
The organisation adopted appreciative methods, which was consistent with the positive atmosphere that prevailed.
The study is a lovely piece of work by Halm, but it does leave one or two questions unanswered, including what events triggered the improvement in performance and was it sustained? Could Halm have intended the paper as the starting point for a larger project? I tried to contact the name given in the paper for future correspondence, but received no reply. If anyone from the University of Minnesota can shed light on my questions please get in touch.
