Engagement - it's a buzzword. 

I think it's a real concept, but we've driven it into the ground with a thousand different articles to the point where it means different things to different people, and let's face it - most people in our business couldn't agree on what the term means, much less how to promote it in the workplace.

Can everyone in your workplace be engaged?  No way - human nature prevents that.  Can you figure out who's engaged? 

Sure.  Just look at who takes the time to perform via email when it doesn't matter. The following email is from a configuration team member at my company who works a lot of hours.  Among the thousand things he does for us is own the process of deploying new releases of our software to the production environment (we do hosted solutions, so we own that for customers).  When we have a new release that needs to go into production, that gets done overnight - when customers aren't using our app.

When the update process is complete, Steve sends an email to everyone in the company.  Recently, Steve made a change.  Rather than saying "the new release is up, people", he starting entertaining via email.  He didn't have to do that, no one expects that.  Now people come in during the morning and his "the new release is up, people" emails went from being deleted unread to being read by everyone.  Here's a recent taste, where he took some shots at me, how I title people in my department, the CEO, and the demands of his job (names changed as appropriate):

From: Steve Mannester
Date: April 14, 2010 1:08:31 AM CDT
To: Everyone
Subject: DAXKO Accounting 10.2.4 Release Deployed to Production

What’s in a name…

SCM: I have been corresponding with Kristie and noticed her title was Talent Sherpa, what’s that all about?

Kris Dunn: Sherpa is used to refer to local people who are employed as guides for mountaineering expeditions in the Himalayas, particularly Mt. Everest.  They are highly regarded as elite mountaineers and experts in their local terrain.  Thus our Sherpas are DAXKO’s expert guides to seek out the best talent.

SCM: Ohhh, so is everyone getting a new title?

Kris Dunn: We are getting around to everyone. Take our CEO, for instance, his new title is “Grand Poobah”, it’s a Flintstone thing.

SCM: Can I change my title to “Grand Master Flash”?

Kris Dunn: Sorry, David only wants one title with the word “Grand”.

SCM: Can I change my title to “Nike”?

Kris Dunn: Sure, but why Nike?

SCM: Because I am always told “Just Do It”

I just did it…10.2.4 release from DAXKO Accounting has been deployed on RackSpace Production, DataValidation, Demo and Training sites. Conversion has also been updated.  All sites up and running.

Classic. Who doesn't love that?  3-4 times a week, he's writing original content.  He's either engaged in his own career, via caring what people think, the company, etc., but he's engaged.  The bottom line is he's giving something he doesn't have to give, and people love it. 

That's engagement.  I don't need the Gallap G12 to tell me that.  How to get people to want to give that discretionary effort?  That's the holy grail.

How does the conventional wisdom go?  First-mover advantage is key, right?  Be the first to market and build a solution that's good enough, and to the victor goes the spoils.  Combine first-mover advantage with some barriers to others' entry, and you've got a market position that has "cash-cow" written all over it

I agree - first-mover advantage is great to have.  However, I'd offer this alternative view: The first-mover advantage can and will diminish over time, especially as that nimble approach/solution you started with grows into a legacy battleship that's hard to move and vulnerable to the disruptor.

Case in point:  Microsoft Money vs. Mint.

I've been a Microsoft Money user for at least 5 years, using Money to track my finances and do budgeting for our household.  Unfortunately, 2009 was so busy I didn't use the product at all.  One of my resolutions for 2010 was to get back on the budgeting front and understand where our money was going, save more, etc.  So I fired up my copy of Money on a home laptop and proceeded to attempt to load up the first three months of transactions for our household in 2010.

What I found out shocked me. Microsoft Money has been discontinued.  No more downloads.  Too much competition.

Too many competitors like Mint.com who changed the game.

While Microsoft had a nice run at the Quicken/Money Management segment, their advantage (second mover after Quicken but tons of market power?) faded over time.  Their solution was based on the local license model, where you had to install the software on your PC.  As the complexity of their solution grew, it became hard for the end-user to maximize.

Enter Mint.com.  Mint's a web-based personal finance solution (nothing to install, your account on-demand from any computer you need it to be) that's two things that Money was not: Free and Simple.  After Money shut down, I remembered the glowing review of Mint and opened an account.  What I found was an interface that was simple to use, and while Mint had 50% of the features of Money, it easily had 90% of the functionality I needed, iPhone app included.

Mint's a great example of a disruptor that was able to overcome the first mover advantage of a giant like Microsoft.  Change the game dramatically enough with your solution and make it simple (yet extremely functional), and you've got a shot to unseat the first-mover who's printing cash and unable to turn the battleship.

Which leads me to this question as an outro to this post.  If you were going to disrupt the first mover advantage of the traditional HR practice, what features would your new solution (designed to disrupt traditional HR) have?

Here's mine.  I would include the following features:

• I'd make sure every HR manager and up (Director, VP) had recruiting in their active skill set,
• I'd design my practice so it was non-negotiable that a substantial investment was made in managerial skills over the 1st two years of a new manager's career,
• I'd design my practice so it was non-negotiable that a substantial investment was made in career planning for team members, regardless of if that career path took them away from my company.
• I'd design selection practices so that the capacity to coach (or capacity to learn how to coach) was the first priority when promoting an individual contributor to a manager role - not subject matter expertise.

That's how I would disrupt the HR battleship if I was designing a new HR service model.  What would you do if you wanted to be like Mint.com in HR?

When I hire sales pros, I invariably turn to the following question - is this sales pro a "hunter" or a "farmer"? The farmer, in my eyes, is more passive and more apt to do well in a sales role that requires more account management than actual hardcore sales.

The hunter, however, has no tolerance for the hand holding that goes with account managment.  She's done and on to the next one.  You have to pay her more than the farmer as well, because good hunters are harder to find than good farmers.  I also view the hunter as having more "nature" than "nuture" in them.  I think you can teach someone to hunt, but the love of the hunt is more of an innate skill/behavioral trait.

Of course, my method is probably too simple.  There are a lot of other factors in play, including the life stage of your company.  One guy thinks that for early stage companies, you should figure out if that sales candidate you're talking to is Journeyman, Maverick or Superstar, then hire accordingly.  Introducing Mark Suster of Both Sides of the Table:

"But doesn’t Journeyman almost imply something pejorative? Yeah, kind of. Even though they’re great at process you can tell when you spend time with them that they miss some sort of “spark” that you’re expecting in a sales person. Some sort of magic where you just finished the meeting and can’t remember what they were selling but you know you needed three of them. It’s the “je ne sais quoi,” the “X factor.” And in my experience Journeyman are not good in two scenarios. a) they don’t tend to make great heads of sales departments and b) they aren’t the people you want early in your company. The reason for “b” is that most early stage companies survive on “evangelical sales” as in when you’re having to educate the customer on something new and different and get them to take a leap of faith. Journeymen don’t do “leap of faith.” They sell more commoditized or well understood products that can be sold via a well-defined process. That’s my view, anyhow. And my experience has taught me that."

First things first. You should add Suster to your reader, if for no other reason than you don't have enough exposure to the mind of the Venture Capitalist. Go do that.  Now.

You can click through for the descriptions off the Maverick and the Superstar from Mark's post.  I think expanding my myopia of hunter/farmer makes sense, especially in light of the company you are.  You can look at the lifecycle stage of your company, you can look at the industry, the culture, whatever you want and make a determination whether a Journeyman, Maverick or Superstar would be best for you.

Mark doesn't go into it, but the compensation requirements of each are different as well.  Factor that in, and many companies couldn't afford the Superstar.  With that in mind, you're left with the Journeyman and the Maverick, and there are a lot of cultures that need the behavioral traits of the Maverick on their sales force but their culture won't support that hire.  So by default, they're left with the Journeyman.

Interesting stuff, lots of moving parts.  Go read the post and learn. And yeah, I went there with the pic of Maverick from Top Gun, people.  Iceman can't be far behind for next week.

Sad but true.  The AFL-CIO is shutting down both their retail store in DC AND their online store.  Doesn't shutting down an online store pretty much admit NO ONE is buying your stuff?  Anyway, you need to buy some stuff now, because you may not be able to find this "unions rock" stuff in the future.  Let's go to the announcement and then talk about how we can help save the AFL-CIO store after the jump:

"Now’s the time to get a bargain on union-made, made-in-America products including  apparel, such as hats, jackets and shirts, mugs and more. The AFL-CIO’s The Union Shop Online<https://unionshop.aflcio.org/>TM has it all—for half price. Take advantage of this great 50 percent-off deal now: The offer is good only while supplies last and many of the shop’s most popular items are already sold out. But we still have some of the popular Fiesta pitchers.

We’re sorry to say the sale is taking place because, after seven years, The Union Shop is closing its doors at the end of April—both The Union Shop OnlineTM and the bricks-and-mortar The Union Shop at the AFL-CIO in Washington, D.C. Act fast because these great deals on the apparel, pitchers, mugs, stickers, buttons and more are disappearing. So, click on over to The Union Shop Online<https://unionshop.aflcio.org/>TM and check out these great bargains. When your cart is full, check out with the discount code, 2CLOSE10."

Don't let the dream die!! Let's talk about how we can prevent this.  If Unions are a solid product, then we don't have a concept issue, we've got a merchandise/marketing issue.  The best way to save the AFL-CIO store is to come up with some trendy merchandise.  Put on your brainstorming hat and figure out the cool marketing angle to save the union merchandise store.  I just spent an hour at the whiteboard, and I'm convinced we need to focus less on the AFL-CIO brand, and instead talk about what unions can do for their members.  Here are some T-shirt ideas I came up with:

"My Union: Now Handing Out Promotions Based on Tenure, not Performance"

"Innovation and Unions: Just look at Detroit. Need We Say More?"

"The Union Extra Mile: That's Not In My Job Description, Man"

"The Employee Free Choice Act: If You See a Group of Five Underperforming Employees Walking Towards You, You'll Know It's Time to (In)Voluntarily Sign the Card"

Uh, OK, maybe that's not going to work.  Screw it, order up your Fiesta pitchers with the AFL-CIO ASAP.  Or hit me in the comments with your t-shirt ideas that can save the union movement...

If I could afford to pay you to read this blog, would that be a good decision?  Would it motivate you to consume the daily fodder here, or would you simply become addicted to the payment and demand increasing rewards in exchange for continued patronage?  Or would you lose interest in reading the Capitalist regardless of the continued payments, stripped of your intrinsic drive to improve your knowledge by presence of cash exchange?

If you haven't figured it out by know, I'm reading Dan Pink's "Drive", which basically tries to debunk everything we know about rewards and motivation and makes a strong case that the secret to high performance and satisfaction - at work, at school and at home - is the deep human need to direct our own lives, learn and create new things and do better for ourselves and the world.

It's a pretty radical book that basically says if you're trying to pay someone to motivate them to do more, you're setting yourself up for failure, especially in a knowledge economy where creativity is required to perform at a high level.  My CEO gave me the book and I'm only about 70 pages through it right now.  Still, I remembered that a rewards and motivation guy I respect - Paul Hebert of I2I and Fistful of Talent, reviewed the book during Christmas of 2009 and had this to say:

"Yesterday I gave you the short answer on Dan Pink’s new book “Drive.”   Good book, but not the be-all and end-all of books on motivation. That is an important sentence.  

Do not use this book as your bible for employee motivation.  While the book’s main point is well made – people perform better when they have control over their work, see progress in mastering it and contribute to a higher purpose – that alone can’t drive business success. I believe the book is designed to convince your that almost all of the work done today – or to be done tomorrow – is better influenced through the autonomy, mastery and purpose model (AMP) and that most, if not all, incentive-based performance programs should go the way of the Dodo.

Don’t fall for it.   think this is just ONE piece in a puzzle, one color in a rainbow, one thread in a tapestry – of all the ways to influence behavior in your organization.  The concepts and ideas in Drive do apply - in some segments of your employee base, but not all.  While the concept of motivation through allowing employees to have autonomy, mastery and purpose (AMP) is nice, and could engage some people, it is not, IMHO, a workable business plan for motivation in an organization."

I dig the ideas in Pink's book, but I have to agree with Paul - don't drink the Kool-Aid that "Drive" is a one-stop shop for all things related to rewards and motivation.  Need proof that the rewards/motivation/performance space is complex?   Check out the current issue of Time, which details an extensive Harvard study that attempts to answer the age-old motivation question whether we should bribe kids to work hard in school.   Here are the results of the extended study:

"The results began to trickle into the lab last summer. In New York City, the $1.5 million paid to 8,320 kids for good test scores did not work — at least not in any way that's easy to measure. In Chicago, under a different model, the kids who earned money for grades attended class more often and got better grades, two major accomplishments. Those students did not, however, do better on their standardized tests at the end of the year.

In Washington, the kids did better on standardized reading tests. Getting paid on a routine basis for a series of small accomplishments, including attendance and behavior, seemed to lead to more learning for those kids. And in Dallas, the experiment produced the most dramatic gains of all. Paying second-graders to read books significantly boosted their reading-comprehension scores on standardized tests at the end of the year — and those kids seemed to continue to do better the next year, even after the rewards stopped."

Translation: when it comes to paying people to try harder and perform better - IT DEPENDS.  I love the vibe of Pink's book, but I'm way too jaded by the workplace to think that there's one absolute answer when it comes to the impact of rewards on motivation and performance. 

And by the way, I'm not paying you to read my blog.  I'm choosing to side with the theories of Pink on that one.  Paying you would only rob you of your intrinsic motivation.  HA!!

Leave you with this great story from the Time article, which you should read in it's entirety:

"In junior high school, one of my classmates had a TV addiction — back before it was normal. This boy — we'll call him Ethan — was an encyclopedia of vacuous content, from The A-Team to Who's the Boss?

Then one day Ethan's mother made him a bold offer. If he could go a full month without watching any TV, she would give him $200. None of us thought he could do it. But Ethan quit TV, just like that. His friends offered to let him cheat at their houses on Friday nights (Miami Vice nights!). Ethan said no."

One month later, Ethan's mom paid him $200. He went out and bought a TV, the biggest one he could find.

Word.  Motivation is a complex thing.

I'm not one likely to organize an unconference or tweetup, but I'll make an exception this time.

Because this time it's different.  This time we're playing for keeps. As you might expect from me, there's a mixture of Sports and the HR/Recruiting world involved.

I'm pleased to announce the 1st annual "Tremendous Upside" Unconference.  We're designing this for HR and Recruiting pros who happen to love the organizational test tube called the National Basketball Association (also known as the "NBA", "the League", and "the Show").  True to the theme, we're planning on gathering in Vegas on July 9-11 (Friday through Sunday), where the weekend's festivities will be structured around the talent market that is the NBA's Vegas Summer League.

If you're not familiar with the NBA Summer League, the event is an off-season pro basketball league run by the NBA just following the NBA Draft. Teams consist of players who have been in the NBA for 3 years or fewer as well as newly drafted talent. It gives Rookies a chance to practice against other players who are new to the NBA. Games are held throughout the ten days at Thomas & Mack Center and Cox Pavilion on the UNLV Campus.

Dreams are in reach and sometimes crushed in this league, often in the same day.  The unconference will be structured only to the extent that I'll publish a listing of the games we'll be attending. Talent conversations will be in full effect during those sessions and once we leave the gym, and trust me, the event will be THICK with HR/Recruiting/Talent related contrast.  There are no speakers, and you're responsible for your own tickets, hotel (once we gage the interest, we'll potentially deem one hotel the unconference HQ) and travel.  There's no conference fee either, BTW.  To be eligible to attend, you have to have 3 things: A career in the HR/Recruiting industry, an interest in the NBA or sports in general, and cash available for the trip.  Make that four things - a sense of humor as well.  Don't be rolling into Tremendous Upside all serious and stuff. 

The unofficial logo of the Tremendous Upside Unconference is the image of Ricky Rubio that appears to the side of this post.  If you get that, you're a prime candidate for Tremendous Upside.  If you don't get it but would like to, you're still a prime candidate to enjoy this experience.

Loose confirmations of attendance include the following:  Kris Dunn, Tim Sackett, Steve Boese, Lance Haun and Matthew Stollak.  If you fit the 4 eligibility requirements outlined above and want to attend (EOE alert - females are welcome at this event, it just so happens that all the HR/Recruiting + NBA cronies I know are guys - go figure), sign up at our Eventbrite page here, then DM me via twitter at http://twitter.com/kris_dunn or email me.  We'd love to have you be a part of the Tremendous Upside experience.

If the experience is a hit, I smell expansion of Tremendous Upside to Spring Training in 2011.  Join us - you deserve it. You've got Tremendous Upside...

Let's face it, Jack Welch has been gone from GE for YEARS and we're still sucking the fumes of "up or out" (firing the bottom 10%), Crotonville (the famed GE Leadership Development center) and every other well documented people product/concept labeled as a best practice out of GE.

Of course, I like Jack Welch, so I'm always happy to listen.  But that doesn't mean I can't ponder the cult of personality that is Jack Welch and GE when it comes to OD practices.  Heard him on CNBC the other day and decided to put together these 10 Bitchin' Facts about Jack Welch.  Enjoy:

10.  The only reason you're conscious right now is because Jack Welch doesn't want to carry you.

9.  The SHRM audience in 2009 asked Jack Welch a lot of questions.  They were advised not to ask Jack Welch what he would do for a Klondike bar.

8. Superman has Jack Welch pajamas.

7. General gunfight rule: shoot first, ask questions later. Welch gunfight rule: shoot first, shoot later, shoot some more, and when everyone's dead, ask a couple o' questions.

6. Jack Welch can eat just one Lay's Potato Chip. Don't tell Jack what he can't ****** do.

5. Taco Bell used to close at midnight, until Jack Welch decided he wanted to have burritos at 2 am.

4. Chuck Norris can drink an entire gallon of milk in thirty-seven seconds. Jack Welch doesn't drink milk. Milk is for sissies.

3. Jack Welch once lost reception on his cell phone. 24 hours later AT&T announced that it would have more bars in more places.

2. Jack Welch's rice crispies don't go snap,crackle and pop,they go "Ssshhh here  comes Jack"...

1.  As a boy, Jack Welch held an Ops Review with his parents on Easter until they revealed the location and contents of each hidden egg.

May your weekend be fruitful and be absent the need to maked forced-choice decisions on your children. 

This is what Jack Welch and I wish for you.

Part of being an old Gen X'er like me is helping the young ones understand how to carry themselves in the world.  Sometimes that means preaching to my 9 and 6 year old boys (whom I can wax poetic to without time limit) but sometimes it's a more limited engagement where I need to influence someone who's not a captive audience - like a team member, a colleague or a candidate.

You've got to pay the advice thing forward.  I only hope that when I fall back down, you're going to pick me up as well.  Lord knows I've needed coaching in the past, and I could probably use some advice at some point this week...

Two coaching snippets from my world last week:

-A young man, who may or may not live in my house, was convinced he was going to break a school record that had stood for 18 years and was randomly telling people his plan.  A parental type, who may or may not be me, advised him "you better not run your mouth about records to other people until you've actually broken one.  And even then, it's a bad idea".

-A great candidate for a manager spot I was recruiting for blew the interview when she refused to talk about her track record of helping others raise their game professionally.  She was very, very talented - but all she wanted to do was talk about her accomplishments.  Unfortunately, the role in question, as well as the last five years of her career, was all about helping others be successful.

Why's this on my mind?  Landon, a reader of the Capitalist from Seattle, recently emailed me the clip below featuring NBA player Andray Blatche (Washington Wizards) chasing a 10th rebound at the end of a meaningless game to score a "triple-double" (double figures in three stats, usually points, rebounds and assists).  Unfortunately for everyone involved, Blatche is so concerned about the personal accomplishment and the stat line that he proceeds to make a fool of himself, embarrass his family and possibly put a rex-hex on the Wizards franchise for the next decade. Watch the video below and track the center of the universe with the following rundown from Deadspin:

"0:23 seconds remaining: Blatche pulls one down, only to get whistled for a foul. Does not react well.

•0:19 seconds remaining: Chris Douglas-Roberts puts up an airball that lands right in the hands of Cartier Martin, just as Blatche rushes over. Does not react well.

•0:08 remaining: the Nets have a fast break. It occurs to Blatche that he will have to hustle to be in position for a potential rebound. He puts on the afterburners.

•0:04 remaining: with the game essentially over, Blatche attempts to drive the length of the court and brick one to get his own rebound."

Wow. Was that brutal or what?  The message is pretty simple:

1. We all like talented people.

2. Talented people become lepers (no offense to lepers) when they chase stats and individual performance at the expense of meshing with the team.

3. Whatever industry you work in and company you work for, RESPECT THE GAME.  Or it's going to eat you up.  When Blatche is waived by the Wizards, he just lowered the probability of another team picking him up by 50%.

4.  If you want to lead in the future, you have to act like you've been there before when you are successful.  Even if you haven't been.

Somewhere, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson and Joe Dumars (sorry Jordan fans, I'm a Pistons guy) just threw up in their mouth a little bit. 

Chase performance. When you catch it, act like you've been there before and you're part of a team...

You know I can't make that title up, right?

Topic - interns.  You face the following headache/morality play:

Manager: I don't have any budget to hire a person to do this task for me, and all my other people are swamped.

You: Ah yes, the old project triangle - money, time and quality.  Without any money, you'll be selecting high quality for the project, and it will be completed whenever you get around to it, right?

Manager: Wait!  I'll hire an intern!

You: Are you going to pay the intern?

Manager: No.  They'll work for free.

You: They might work for free, but you know it's actually illegal per labor law to have unpaid interns who perform work of value to you, right?

Manager: You're a communist.  I can hire all the unpaid interns I want, and they'll be happy to work for free for the experience.

You: Call me Vladimir, and I'm not responsible for our labor laws.  Like the government, I'm here to help.  And it's illegal to have unpaid interns doing real work .

In a little known and widely abused section of labor law, it's actually illegal to have unpaid interns who do work of value for your company.  I've gone round and round regarding this with managers in the past, but I'm happily at a company where we pay interns, so it's a non-issue.  Still, the law exists, so save the emails.  Here's some text from the New York Times since you believe them more than you believe a blogger like me (I deserve better BTW):

"The Labor Department says it is cracking down on firms that fail to pay interns properly and expanding efforts to educate companies, colleges and students on the law regarding internships.

“If you’re a for-profit employer or you want to pursue an internship with a for-profit employer, there aren’t going to be many circumstances where you can have an internship and not be paid and still be in compliance with the law,” said Nancy J. Leppink, the acting director of the department’s wage and hour division.

Ms. Leppink said many employers failed to pay even though their internships did not comply with the six federal legal criteria that must be satisfied for internships to be unpaid. Among those criteria are that the internship should be similar to the training given in a vocational school or academic institution, that the intern does not displace regular paid workers and that the employer “derives no immediate advantage” from the intern’s activities — in other words, it’s largely a benevolent contribution to the intern."

The money quote out of all of that is the following:  In order for an intern to be unpaid legally, "the employer must “derive no immediate advantage” from the intern’s activities.

English version - if you have unpaid interns that do work that matters (which ironically, is what is most valuable to them in the real world) and you don't pay them, like Beavis and Butthead, you're breaking the law.

I can't tell you that the law makes sense, especially in an economic climate where so many are looking to change careers and would gladly take no pay for the experience they need.  Wanna argue about it?  Write your congress(wo)man...

If you follow this little digital screed I like to call the Capitalist, you know that I've written a couple of reviews touting some of the ideas included in Seth Godin's new book - Linchpin.  I love the book, and you should check it out as a road map for making yourself indispensable - whether you want to be indispensable to your customers, your company, or whatever else is important to you.

So being indispensable is a good thing, right?  Without a doubt, that's generally true, but there's a dark reality if you don't become indispensable in the right way.  If you hoard the secret sauce that makes you a linchpin to your customers or your company, you'll have job security alright - but no ability to grow.  More from the small business section of Time:

"Take, for example, the avid photographer who starts her own business. She shoots weddings, expectant moms, family portraits, ball teams and prom queens. Her passion for photography is contagious, and her customers love her work and tell their friends about the wonderful photographer who shot their wedding pictures. Word spreads, and the photographer gets busier. Mistaking her personal success for that of her business, she hires a junior photographer to share the load, but customers like the owner's work, not her underling's. Customers who are referred ask for the owner herself. Returning customers ask for her too. Soon she is busier than ever, and her young helper is underutilized."

That's a great example of someone who is indispensable but unable to grow as a result of their position on the "critical path" of life.  For some, it's an inability to see the game and understand in order to grow, they'll need to let go and teach others what they know or hire people with the ability to grow into a form of indispensability themselves.  For many in the corporate world, it's a form of knowledge hoarding that's the result of a fear of becoming dispensable and losing their job once others know what they know.

The point?  In either situation, it's impossible to grow unless you're willing to bring others into the fold and make them part of the equation.

The bottom line?  If you're indispensable to others, great job.  Whether you own your own business or work in corporate America, if you want to grow you can't stop there.  You have to become a coach by bringing others into the fold and teaching them what you know.  It's the only way for you to remain indispensable and create space that allows you to do other things. 

Let's close with this - Imagine that what makes you indispensable is a product.  In order to spread that product and grow other people, you have to grow those people.  Here's what needs to be present according to Time, which was written for small business owners but is relevant for the corporate employee/manager as well:

"Scalable products meet three criteria:

They are teachable. You can explain your process to someone or program technology to deliver your system while you sleep.

They are valuable. Customers want what you're hawking.

They are repeatable. For the same reason technology companies give away their printers so you'll become hooked on buying their toner, a scalable product needs to have a consumable element that forces customers to repurchase it regularly.

What makes you indispensable is uniquely yours.  To really become indispensable, you've got to give the gift of coaching and help others become indispensable in a similar way - with no fear of losing your own status.