Mojo-Dynamics is a term I created to characterize people’s engagement level within the work world. It is analogous, and has many similarities to how Thermo-Dynamics characterizes energy within the physical world.

Most people are taught at school the three main laws of Thermo-Dynamics, which help to explain energy within the physical world, Table 1.

In an analogous way, there are three main laws of Mojo-Dynamics which help to explain Engagement (or energy) within the people/work world, Table 1.

Table 1.

Law Number Thermo-Dynamics Mojo-Dynamics
1. Total amount of energy is constant. It can only change form. Total amount of potential engagement within people is constant. It can change form at work
from engagement to disengagement.
2. Disorder always increases, and energy efficiency decreases. Disengagement at work will always increase without appropriate management or leadership, and engagement levels will decrease.
3. All molecular movement stops at absolute zero. Engagement stops, and disengagement is maximized at work, when people’s trust levels of management or leadership drop to zero.

In a recent Gallop Poll, it was confirmed that only 13% of people are currently engaged at work.

There are of course many theories to explain the reason or reasons for this. In my view, one of the key reasons is the level of trust that people have, or don’t have, of their managers or leaders.

  • With Trust: Nothing Else Matters*
  • Without Trust: Nothing Else Matters*

*Presentation on Trust:!/Purchase

One thought on “MOJO-DYNAMICS

  1. In my experience working in the corporate world, there were primarily two types of non-management employees: one type that believed the company operated within a competitive environment and each of these people made it part of their working day to keep informed of how their products and services compared to the nearest competitors’. If they were managed by like-minded executives (who they trusted to be on the same page), and were rewarded for producing results, they remained engaged.

    Then there were type 2 employees: These were the “political” animals. They did not recognize the outside world but rather viewed their workplace as a culture and country unto itself and the rules of the road have more to do with “looking good” rather than producing results. If they were managed by like-minded executives, they were rewarded for doing things that “made their boss look good,” which may indeed have nothing to do with results, but only requires creating an impression that everyone is working hard toward results……staying late, working longer, creating more meetings and paperwork. If they didn’t make their bosses look good, they disengaged because they soon became invisible. If by chance they made their bosses look bad (case in point – the whistleblower), bye bye job. No trust here.

    In a monopoly environment, companies with predominantly type 2 employees could survive if the products and services developed by the labs/manufacturing division are adequate. In a competitive environment, the latter type of employee and culture spells eventual disaster no matter what the company makes. IMHO.
    Julianne Weinmann,

Leave a Reply to boyd2069 Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *