Rewarding the Disruptors

Yesterday I read quite an interesting post by Mike Haberman on his Omega HR Solutions blog. In it, Mike ponders the value of a disruptive employee – the employee who “thinks different,” who pushes the boundaries, who steps outside of the culture.

Mike raises an important point. In today’s era of hiring for cultural fit or, more in my world, recognizing and rewarding employees who live your core values (which are the hallmarks of your culture), perhaps we exclude too quickly those who are not a culture fit. Referring to research by Stephen Millett, Mike discusses how a culture, over time, can become too closed to change, too focused on maintaining the status quo. And that can be harmful because the world itself and the needs of the customer are constantly changing. Hence, the need for the disruptor.

 

There’s an angle I agree with here, in that we can all become wedded to “the way we do things around here” (the definition of culture), causing us to forgo innovation and miss opportunities along the way. Why, then, do we discount, disqualify or flat out fire (or refuse to hire) the disruptors?

There are many reasons, not least of which is the natural human response of fear to change or perceived change. Also, disruptors often couch their ideas in less than ideal terms, perhaps being perceived as bullies or worse. It’s easier to grease the wheel by removing the disruptor than it is to find out why the wheel was squeaking in the first place.

A Culture that Rewards the Disruptor

Clearly, a balance is needed. Fortunately this can be achieved by fostering a culture in which constant pushing of the boundaries is desired and expected. To create this culture, begin by ensuring disruptors are recognized and rewarded for bringing their creativity, perspective and insight.

A caution, however – while rewarding disruptors for ideas that change the game is needed, avoiding a culture that encourages the less savory antics of poor presentation of these ideas is a must. Rudeness is never a behavior to be encouraged, praised or rewarded.

This spotlights the delicate balance between recognizing and rewarding the “how” (the way in which results are achieved) as well as the “what” (the results). Focusing only on the “what” leads to ENRON, AIG and a whole host of other examples of the end outweighing the means. By making the “how” just as important in terms of what the organization recognizes and rewards, leadership gains much better control over a healthy, supportive, positive culture that still encourages innovation, questioning and – yes – disruption.

Are disruptors rewarded in your organization? Are you a disruptor?

As Globoforce’s Head of Strategic Consulting, Derek Irvine is an internationally minded management professional with over 20 years of experience helping global companies set a higher ambition for global strategic employee recognition, leading workshops, strategy meetings and industry sessions around the world. His articles on fostering and managing a culture of appreciation through strategic recognition have been published in Businessweek, Workspan and HR Management. Derek splits his time between Dublin and Boston. Follow Derek on Twitter at @DerekIrvine.

Comments

[Michael D. Haberman, SPHR]

Derek:
I am glad I could be the impetus for this great post. It is interesting, Tim Sackett also focused on the "how" of disruption in some comments he made to me. We have a mindset that disruptor = troublemaker and troublemaker is a bad thing. That is not the kind of disruptor I have in mind. I consider myself to be something of a disruptor but I am not a bully. I work by saying things like why, why not, have you thought about, here is another way to look at that, sorry we I don't wish to do that, etc. my purpose is to make you (wait for it) "think outside the box", because many people don't.

Constantly hearing that from someone can irritate some leaders and as a result the disruptor is punished or shunned or driven from the company. I think that is detrimental to the organization. Perhaps we need to write a guide on carrying for and feeding your disruptor.

[Derek Irvine, Globoforce]

It was a great post, Mike. We do need to encourage the "disruptors" or we will stop growing and developing.

[Debra Gray global.exe]

You hit the nail on the head... what we say we need - truth/change vs what we truly value - security/status quo

We say we want (need) transparency....but what we really want (value) is compliance.

I wonder if disruptors can make the people at the top feel "wrong" causing a loss of face and credibility.

Also, changes in course are costly, time consuming and challenging from a mindset perspective...not to mention that they stop or slow down the forward motion of what is currently the norm.

[Derek Irvine, Globoforce]

All excellent observations, Debra. There are many reasons to ignore, marginalize or simply get rid of the disruptors. But so much more to be gained by figuring out how to listen to them and incorporate their ideas...

[E. James (Jim) Brennan]

Good to remember. The scientific method is based on the essential assumption that conclusions must be able to withstand challenge. Thus the importance of the null hypothesis approach and "disruptors" that stimulate our brain cells. No muscle ever got strong without exercise.