top of page

Striving for the “Dream Workplace”: A Brief Memo


There was an article published in the Harvard Business Review in 2013 about six characteristics that supported an ideal workplace. They were:

  1. Individual differences are nurtured

  2. Information is not suppressed or spun

  3. The company adds values to employees, rather than merely extracting it from them

  4. The organization stands for something meaningful

  5. The work itself is intrinsically rewarding

  6. There are no stupid rules

How Refresh Bolivia generally involves students in order to make progress on projects and tasks is through student boards. We currently have three, one based in Cambridge, one based in Claremont, and a third that’s developing in New York City.

Recently, I’ve been thinking a lot about how to improve the “workplace” environment in Claremont. Essentially, what I’ve noticed is that while one half of my board is excited, willing to collaborate, and all personally invested in their project, the other half seemingly isn’t. At first, I attributed it to the nature of the different projects each half was working on, in that it was just the way it is. However, I’ve recently been wondering if there’s something I can do differently.

I don’t believe in happening to just get “all the right people”. People joined the Refresh Bolivia Claremont board for a reason, so I believe that it’s more a matter of finding out their motivations and cultivating the right workplace so that they can thrive.

What I’ve decided to do in this post is anecdotally provide examples where I believe the Claremont chapter succeeds and doesn’t succeed in the six characteristic areas of an ideal workplace. I intend to follow up by creating a survey and distributing it to all existing boards to see if we can quantify how board members feel in regards to the six areas.

The organization nurtures individual differences. There is a difference between mechanical solidarity and organic solidarity. Briefly, mechanical solidarity can be characterized by a predictable culture of conformity where every member has the same ideas, values, and background. Organic solidarity, on the other hand, can be represented by a singularity point where people from different backgrounds with different ideas and values meet. The difference here is that while you might like mechanical solidarity at a factory plant, you probably don’t want it in an organization that’s poised to make impactful changes to public health. You want different innovative ideas to shine through.

How does Claremont do? Well, most of the students involved come from similar backgrounds, pre-med, and honestly that’s ok. It’s a little different in this case because unlike larger companies, we can afford to have people from more specialized areas because we are a smaller organization with specific goals and projects. However, I do sense some dangers in the sense of mechanical solidarity, in that sometimes I worry that students lose sight of the greater impact of the projects and instead view the project as a chore or job function that needs to be completed. Maybe, to combat this, I could ask each member what they think they bring to the table. How can you, as a unique individual, contribute uniquely to this project?

Information is not suppressed or spun. I personally will do a better job of this. I admit I have a tendency not to share information for fear of “overloading” students or keeping information on a “need-to-know” basis. However, it seems from both my personal observations and historically, that keeping a free flow of information is usually not a bad thing. In my case, it can even help student board members feel more invested in the organization if they are made aware of everything that’s going on, that they are part of the team.

The company adds, not just extracts, value to members. This is something I think about quite often. Am I truly providing value to members, or do I just think I am? When I started the Claremont chapter, I did so with the intention of creating a space on campus where students can take charge of real-world, high-impact projects and feel some level of real responsibility. Students could learn about the field of public health as well as be able to say that they worked on a really important project. For college students, a lot of extrinsic incentive is about what you can put on a résumé or say in an interview. Hopefully, my board members feel the same way I do; that they can really gain valuable experience by working with Refresh Bolivia.

Some things I can do, along with the things I’ve mentioned above, to improve workplace culture is to constantly remind everyone that they are doing high-impact work. Additionally, I can try to get to know each individual member a little better to understand what their motivations are so I can best facilitate their growth and development.

I want to cultivate leaders, not followers. How I see this concept manifesting is I want to see a room lively with discussion as opposed to one that is silent. Silence may mean efficient work, but in public health, sometimes I’d even prefer rhetorical discussion over silently performing a task without much discussion at all.

The organization stands for something meaningful. I believe in Refresh Bolivia’s mission, but I think the real question here is whether all my board members see it the same way I do. Sure, they can go online and read the mission statement and Refresh Bolivia’s past work, but the key is that they have to believe that they are an integral part of the organization and that the organization is doing something meaningful.

I have no doubt that all of my members see the importance of Refresh Bolivia’s work; I think that’s why they all joined in the first place. However, the point about getting everyone to buy in, to be invested is tougher to gauge.

I think an effective way to accomplish this may be to get people to play to their strengths and take the project in their own directions. Usually, that’s how I become invested in a project; it’s when I feel I have a say in the outcome.

The work is intrinsically rewarding. I’ve already touched upon this point slightly earlier in my post. It’s essentially the idea of students feeling invested in the work they’re doing, as opposed to viewing it as a chore or job function.

There are no stupid rules. I definitely think I follow this aspect when leading the Claremont chapter. I consider myself very flexible and accommodating to my board members’ needs. I never push my members too hard because I understand they have other commitments, priorities and needs.

Overall, I am excited to implement some of the changes I’ve proposed as well as gauge, via a survey, what my board members truly think. Learning to lead a group of people has been a challenge but also an exciting journey. These are valuable skills I’ll learn in team management and mentorship. Just as how I’ve had great mentors and people I look up to, I’d like to provide the same level of mentorship and leadership to others.


Single post: Blog_Single_Post_Widget
bottom of page