Acronym

I think the difference is that Shackleton was on a ship frozen in ice for months at time with his malcontents. It was either embrace them or wait for them to mutiny. Most managers today don't have that kind of operating environment. :)

That's absolutely true! But the authors of Shackleton's Way are holding that lesson up as something other managers (that aren't stuck in the ice) should be doing as well. Do you think it is applicable outside of Shackleton's personal experience? Or would you lean more toward the First, Break All the Rules model?

I don't know that I'd equate malcontents with strugglers. While they may not always be fun to be around for managers, malcontents often are that way for a reason, and you should pay close attention to what they are malcontent about. I don't know that I'd try to win them over and gain their support, but I would listen closely to what they have to say and, if possible, find ways to fix what they perceive is broken (if in fact it is broken and they're not just people who always want to complain about something. If the latter, I'd try to move them along since they obviously don't like where they are).

Similarly, I don't know if I'd spend all my time investing in my best, either. I'd like to think I'd split my time between encouraging the best to achieve new heights, and finding out why the strugglers are struggling--if it's because the job isn't a good fit for their skills, we both need to acknowledge that and do something about it. I'd try to find ways to let them be stars by using their best talents, or move them along to a place where they could be more successful. That's the only fair thing for everyone involved, I think.

Maybe we should ignore BOTH the stars and the stragglers. Sorry I'm late adding to the discussion, but I am reminded of an important lesson learned from my 7th grade Spanish teacher. Mrs. Namee always said that there was a group of students at the top of the class who would learn to speak Spanish no matter how hard she tried to stop them, and another group at the bottom who couldn't learn Spanish from the best teacher in the world. (Apologies to the more modern "No Child Left Behind" educational philosophy.) But, she said, there was one child in the middle of the class who could go in either direction. And if she made a difference in that one student every year, she was successful as a teacher.

Lisa

Shackleton kept his malcontents close because they were toxic and could poison morale.

Buckingham urges us to focus on strengths, not weaknesses, to get the most out of people. And, in fact, my guess is some so-called malcontents have been subjected to anal retentive bosses trying to stuff them into a box.

Best to find out why the disenfranchised are not content with the prevailing world order. If their goal is to subvert, cut them loose. But if they are cynics--disappointed idealists--who could care passionately about the mission and the organization, but have been ignored or underemployed, save them.

Just because someone doesn't agree with me doesn't make them a malcontent. Could just be the grain of sand that is required to form a pearl.

Cheers,
Ann O.

Wayne--That's a great perspective, and one that appeals to me personally. Some of my greatest workplace experiences have involved helping someone really take their work up a level (or someone else helping me do the same thing).

Ann--You're absolutely right that disagreeing with management doesn't automatically make a person a malcontent. And that's important for all managers to remind themselves of that! But I do think that past a certain point, if you're reaching out to help a disappointed idealist, he or she has to reach back. If he or she is consistently destructive in his/her approach to workplace relationships, and chooses not to change that, eventually the reason behind it is less important than the destructiveness.