One of the developing branches of psychology is the study of happiness: positive psychology. Among the many interesting finds of those in the positive psychology realm is the idea that those who perceive an internal locus of control tend to have more life satisfaction and happiness than those perceive an external locus of control (Verme, 2009). But can this cross over into the workplace? One Entrepreneur, Tony Hsieh is betting on it. Hsieh’s (2010) theory is that if you build ways for employees to take control over their career futures into organizational design, one lucky by-product is that these employees will be happier.
Zappos does this through a rigorous career development process, whereby employees can choose their career, enlist in training programs that serve as prerequisites for those positions, and be assured that the will eventually move along the career path they desire. In essence, Zappos created a structure that is designed to keep employees in control of their careers. Interestingly enough this structure demands a large ladder-like organization; the very kind that many organizational thought leaders are speaking against. Instead, they argue that such structures limit people’s potential. That rigid hierarchies inhibit innovation and for organizations to have a competitive advantage, they need to decentralize and move to flatter hierarchies.
They argue that a rigid, hierarchical structure is ineffective, yet the example of Zappos provides quite a counterpoint.
This begs the larger questions: can you design happiness? If so how? Empowerment, or perceived progress?
Verme, P. (2009). Happiness, freedom and control. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 71(2), 146-161.
Hsieh, T. (2010). Delivering happiness: A path to profits, passion and purpose. New York: Business Plus.
I like the idea of empowering employees. Employees who have the opportunity and actually take advantage of choosing their own career path are likely to be ambitious, hard-working individuals.
- Charlene Obille
I agree. I just wonder what route is the best: a flat hierarchy that allows them to pursue any project they want or a well mapped out career pathway that allows them to monitor their career progress.
Thanks for stopping by and for leaving a comment.
What the Zappos example does is illustrate that a properly aligned hierarchy, that of accountability, properly matches capabilities to roles, requisite management structure, treating people and capable and wanting to do their best work, therefore ensureing that they are matched to their cognitive capacity, skills, values + commitment.
Meaning what zappos does is those who want to learn and develop can and do.
I generally do not link to my own stuff in comment, although…I wrote a post about matching capabilities to people. Zappos (in your post) is doing that.
http://create-learning.com/blog/manager-training/is-your-leadership-work-matched-to-capability-how-do-you-know
Are you plugging your stuff on our site? Just kidding. That’s fine. You make a good point, though. It’s not just the hierarchy that does it, it’s how the hierarchy is structured to allow people to grow and develop in roles that are matched to them. Thanks for the link and comment.