Relationships account for 30-40% of differences in performance – Part 2 of ‘Where next for the Fit Forum?’

“Researchers have often applied a one-size-fits-all model to relational work design, overlooking situational and individual differences in the functions of workplace relationship.“ (Grant & Parker, 2009: 36)

The underplaying of social relationships and social cohesion as significant facets of work and organisation is not new. In part this may be attributable to the difficulty researchers encounter when it comes to understanding, codifying and quantifying what happens in human relationships. Yet the ‘R’ word (‘relationship’) is one of those that clients often seem to get nervous about, so maybe I should not be so surprised.

Why bother with researching this area? If we consider for a moment a fundamental question: lovely as it may be to understand how relationships work, is there any impact on performance, ROI or shareholder value? Yes, actually…

“MIT research shows that 40% of creative teams productivity is directly explained by the amount of communication they have with others to discover, gather, and internalise information. In other MIT studies, research shows that employees with the most extensive digital networks are 7% more productive than their colleagues. Furthermore, those with the most cohesive face-to-face networks are 30% more productive.” (Hodgson, 2009 – my italics)

In other words, if an organisation is not cultivating/encouraging/supporting its people to form cohesive social networks, which by definition are based on relationships, it risks 40% of its productivity. This will undoubtedly vary from industry to industry, yet the fundamental point remains: you can invest as much time and money as you want in processes, management structures, policies, strategies and performance management, organisations are inherently relational human systems. If you have not identified how to develop and foster social cohesion, the plan is incomplete at best, flawed at worst.

“Today, work design researchers are increasingly recognizing that jobs, roles, tasks, and projects are inextricably intertwined with interpersonal relationships, connections, and interactions” (Grant & Parker, 2009: 9)

So where does this leave the Fit Form? My intention here has been twofold.

Firstly, to make a case for fit, in the context of the wider fields of research, as an increasingly important lens through which to view relatationships in an organisational context. In and of itself, in the meanings that it comes with and has projected and transferred onto it, fit is a vehicle and symbol of something both fascinating and crucial in the day-to-day, emergent and unfolding nature of human relationships.

Secondly, to propose that relational practitioners and researchers have far more to offer the modern organisation, which is becoming increasingly decentralized, fluid, dynamic and dependent on relationships between individuals who may find themselves increasingly employed and deployed in virtual teams and/or as freelancers who will be contracted on an as needed basis. Why? Because we are able to help clients release the hidden 40% of productivity. Working relationally is not simply about soft outcomes, it impacts directly on hard ones.

References