On Employee Engagement and the C-Suite, by Leigh Branham

10 Mar

I hope you enjoy this post, written by my colleague and good friend Leigh Branham:

I encourage anyone interested in employee engagement to read a report recently released by The The Economist (co-sponsored by The Hay Group), titled “Re-engaging with engagement: Views from the boardroom on employee engagement” .  The report is based on a survey of 331 C-suite executives or senior directors from 19 industries in Europe and the Middle East.  I would be interested in hearing from readers in the U.S. (and internationally) about whether you believe the findings also apply to senior executives in your country, or in your company.

The Survey Findings:

The most disturbing findings were these:

  • 84% of survey respondents say that “disengaged employees” are one of the three biggest threats facing their business.  Yet, only 12% report that their companies “regularly and often” confront staff with “continually low engagement.”  C-suite executives themselves admit that employee engagement is discussed “occasionally”, “rarely,” or “never” at board level in 43% of companies.
  • More than one in five in the C-suite believe that employees are “much more engaged” than those in rival firms, compared with only 7% of respondents outside the C-suite.
  • 47% of C-suite executives believe that they themselves “have determined the levels of employee engagement” in their companies, a view shared by only 16% of senior directors outside the C-suite.  Only 13% of C-suite executives believe that line managers and middle managers are “chiefly responsible” for staff engagement.

My Take:

I was not surprised by the first two findings.  My experience has led me to agree with the report’s conclusion that “a sizeable discrepancy exists between what companies say about the perils of disengagement and how far they will actually go to confront the problem.”  This describes most companies, but not the minority whose CEOs are committed to building best-place-to-work cultures–CEOs like Jim Sinegal at Costco, Kip Tindell at The Container Store, Vineet Nayar of HCL Technologies, Tony Hsieh at Zappos.com, Howard Schultz at Starbucks, Dr. Kim Hoogeveen at Quality Living, Inc., or Graham Weston at Rackspace Hosting (these last two are profiled in our new book, Re-Engage: How America’s Best Places to Work Inspire Extra Effort in Extraordinary Times, co-authored with Mark Hirschfeld).  The business success of these companies speaks for itself that employee engagement works.

Now that “employee engagement” has reached true fad/buzzword status, many CEOs have pretended to embrace it by jumping on the engagement survey bandwagon.  But alas, many have not followed through by acting on employee ideas and feedback.  I think most CEOs no longer need convincing that employee engagement is vital to business success, though some, incredibly, still express doubt. The main reason most CEOs don’t aggressively tackle the employee disengagement issue, I believe, is that it appears “soft” and overwhelmingly difficult (soft = hard) to do so.  After all, in many cases it would mean a complete overhauling of the culture.  Most CEOs, especially at public companies, would much rather, in their boardroom discussions, deal with the nearer-term topic of how to increase quarterly profits.  The irony is, of course, that the surest way to increase profits is to build a culture where engaged employees consistently exceed customer expectations.

The finding that many CEOs are more optimistic than their subordinates about how engaged their employees are compared to rival firms is not surprising considering that most CEOs are generally optimistic and take seriously their role as cheerleader.  The cause for concern lies in the fact that they may be isolated from the reality that those one level down can see more clearly.

Good News, Bad News

What I did not expect to see in the survey was the degree of responsibility that CEOs take for controlling levels of employee engagement in their companies.  This should be good news.  But, if almost half of CEOs believe they are the prime mover of employee engagement in their companies, why are so many not doing more to drive it?  Our analysis of 2.1 million employee engagement surveys from 10,000 employers (in partnership with Quantum Workplace) does indeed show that senior leaders influence employee engagement slightly more than direct managers in that they do set the tone, embody the values, and convey the culture.  But it would be a mistake for CEOs not to hold middle managers equally responsible for driving up levels of employee engagement, just as it would be a mistake to not hold all employees responsible for keeping themselves engaged.  The fact that only 16% of those who report to CEOs agree that CEOs are the primary drivers of engagement suggests that lower-level leaders are more than ready to share the responsibility.

“People Leave Managers, Not Companies”…Up to a Point

I  have facilitated too many post-survey action planning sessions in which middle managers, after identifying the corrective steps they can and must take, come to the inevitable point where they say “we can only do so much.”  Some things, they correctly point out, only CEOs, their boards, and more senior leaders control and decide–things like clarification of company direction, overall staffing/workload levels, work/life policies, general pay/benefits, recognition budgets, and many other vital levers of employee engagement.  It’s up to those of us in HR-related roles to help them see the connections and trust us to advise them on the truest path to engaging leadership.

So, What Do You Think?

I welcome your responses to these questions:

  • Who truly influences levels of employee engagement more in your company–senior leaders or direct managers?
  • What actions should HR leaders take to help C-suite leaders sort out which employee engagement initiatives to take?

Tags: ,

A Defense (of a sort) of Metrics

21 Feb

Written by Mark Hirschfeld and Leigh Branham

This post was originally published as a guest post by our friends Jason Lauritsen and Joe Gerstandt at Talent Anarchy. Do check out their web site for the entire chain of discussion on this important topic.

******************************

This message begins with a disclosure: We earn a great deal of our living helping collect, analyze and create metrics for employers across the United States.

We’re data guys.

You could call us data nerds or data geeks or data commandos and our feelings wouldn’t be hurt one bit. You are certainly welcome to keep this in mind as we respond to the remarks of Joe Gerstandt and Jason Lauritsen and their recent tête-à-tête at Talent Anarchy.

Jason and Joe have offered us a refreshingly candid discussion around a very important question, that being the use of metrics in the effort to build great workplaces. We’re grateful for the opportunity to weigh in on this topic.

Over 110 years ago a German physicist, Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen, brought radiography, or what we more commonly call x-rays, into practical use. The technology, as it was initially designed, had major flaws. For one, in the case of its use as a diagnostic tool in medicine, it creates a two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional object. Because of this weakness there are times when the radiographic picture is inaccurate. There is distortion. The image on a flat x-ray cannot accurately represent the length and width and girth of our body. Early applications of x-rays hurt patients, as well-intended medical researchers slowly lurched the technology forward.

Mark once read that what we know about predicting human behavior is roughly equivalent to medicine in the Middle Ages. That might be a bit dramatic, but it makes an important point—our ways of measuring things like employee engagement are still in their infancy. How we go about measuring human-related “stuff” isn’t as good as it should be right now.

But we’ll get better at it, and we think it’s worth the effort.

There are some crappy metrics out there and metrics being used in the wrong way. Profit, for example, may not always be seen by all as the most worthy goal, though it is highly measurable.  What is more worthy is creating something of value that employees feel good about, and feeling engaged in the creation of it.  The irony is that by initiating and tracking progress on the people metrics, the mystery of how to increase profits is often revealed.  Too many leaders just don’t get it that engagement, for example, is not a program or gold watch or “billion-business-book-of-the-month-club”. It is a leading indicator of customer service, profitability, and value creation…and that the building blocks of employee engagement can be measured in several ways.  Progress doesn’t have to mean “always more,” but it can mean “always better”.

In our travels we’ve met those who use metrics as a sledge hammer, seemingly thinking that employee engagement is about getting one more morsel of flesh out of employees. They may get their pound of flesh, but they’ll never get the sustainable business results for which they pine. One of our favorite horror stories is about an executive who heard that a “great workplace” used green M&M’s as a way of celebrating with employees when the company had a success. This executive decided to bring green M&M’s into his company as a way of creating a more engaged workplace. He was bitterly disappointed that a year later his employees still didn’t think it was good place to work. This ignoramus didn’t understand that the green M&M’s at this company he had read about were a symbol behind which there was significant substance, most importantly a remarkable culture that had been built and nurtured over many years. The best metrics in the world won’t save this dope from himself, nor his company from languishing.

We also have some folks out there, in some cases well-intended, who don’t understand how to use human capital metrics properly and, as a result, make a general mess of things. We often do a horrible job of helping leaders understand how to use tools and resources available to help them be more effective serving and supporting the workplaces they have the privilege to lead.

There are some things we may not ever be able to measure. We may not be able to measure honesty, compassion, and courage, but we can measure the results that those traits produce–lower voluntary turnover, lower quit rates, fewer grievances filed, more internal job progressions allowed, more customers returning more frequently and referring their friends, more managers coaching (often confronting), recognizing (more often) and giving constructive feedback, more new employees being hired through referrals from happier, more engaged employees–all measures of not just more, but of better places to work that do indeed serve as measures of progress toward becoming a remarkable workplace. 

Many of us dream of a world of work that is different than what most now experience. We hope for a workplace where leaders actually give a damn about the people in their employ. Wouldn’t it be great:

  • If a CEO was notified by employees that a new product offering “embarrassed them”, that the CEO took those concerns seriously and immediately changed the product because he always wanted his employees to take pride in their work and their company?
  • A company, in the midst of difficult times, encouraged and helped their employees find new jobs if they couldn’t get them enough hours in their current job?
  • Terminated employees who were a poor fit for a job would feel so positive about their work experience that they would refer family and friends to their former employer?
  • An employer would have such a strong, caring, engaging culture, that when they were forced to have layoffs that all their former employees willingly returned when the economy turned around?
  • An executive team would freely give up their employer funded 401(k) match so that money could be distributed to entry-level employees who participated in the company retirement program?

These aren’t dreams or hopes. Each of these is true.

They come from employers we have had the pleasure of learning about through our research. There may not be many of these places, but they do exist. We wish there were more, and one goal in writing Re-Engage was to inspire other employers that creating and maintaining an engaging workplace can be achieved and that the sometimes arduous, frequently challenging journey is worth it.

There are remarkable leaders out there like the ones we profile, who are doing remarkable things in the world of work. They care deeply. They have compassion and love in their hearts. And along with their hearts, they also have a passion for making sure they’re measuring how well they’re doing in their efforts to create and maintain a great place to work.  

To them this is not an either-or, false-choice proposition— either they care about folks or they care about metrics. With every fiber that is in them they embrace this paradox and care about both.

To them, engagement survey results or other metrics are just like the x-ray. They are crude two-dimensional representations of a three-dimensional living organism called an employer. These leaders use metrics as a way to start a discussion with employees, not as the final answer. They use metrics to support having an honest conversation with a supervisor who isn’t captivating and inspiring her/his employees. They use metrics to inform their gut instinct, not replace it. They use metrics as a guide in making important decisions, not the final word.

One company we’ve worked with achieved a significant year-over-year increase in the results of the employee engagement survey we conduct. The increases were in areas like breaking down unnecessary silos that got in the way of employees working together and having managers who were perceived as more open and honest in their communication with employees. Employees felt more appreciated when they contributed to the success of the business, and perceptions that senior leadership truly cared about building a great workplace were on the rise. These survey results came from efforts on the part of a leadership team that has devoted themselves for over two years to build a more engaging workplace.

They also had one of their best years financially in a long time.

To them, and us, their financial success is not coincidental. These leaders did not achieve this by luck or chance. By thoughtfully and patiently building a great workplace their financial success was, in our view, an inevitable, even natural, result.

No metric we can create or conceive can turn a poor leader from wreaking pain, havoc and agony with every step they take to the employees who fall in their path. But the right metrics used in the right way in the hands of caring leaders can achieve much.

(pic courtesy http://www.sxc.hu/photo/565371)

Tags: ,

Take Two Aspirin and Complete this Engagement Survey

3 Feb

I seem to be doing this a lot recently, but let me start this missive with a disclosure: I am a consultant who earns his living helping companies conduct employee engagement surveys. I’ve also been conducting research in this field for over thirty years. Although some might not consider it a profession, I do. In fact, I’m honored to do this work. I cannot imagine doing anything else. I dig this work. I’m passionate about it.

Heck, you might even call me engaged.

*****************

The firm where I work has an extensive wellness program-a wonderful benefit. As part of that program I just had my cholesterol and blood pressure checked. Medical science has shown that test results such as these are reliable indicators of important aspects of our health. They’re not perfect, but the results of those tests can give us a generally sound idea of whether, for example, we’re headed for a heart attack or stroke. And if those numbers are out of range we can take actions to address the underlying problems related to our health.

I’m really glad we have those measures of our health.

One could call them leading measures of our health. They tell us something about our health before we have a problem. For my money, it’s best to know those indicators now to prevent a heart attack before it happens. Kindly keep this idea in mind as I respond to a recent post by Paul Hebert. Please read the post in full at Incentive Intelligence, and then we’ll continue.

*****************

Welcome back.

To begin, Mr. Hebert says we may not need a survey to tell us how engaged a workplace is, because we have good metrics like employee retention or profits that can guide us.

There’s no question that measures like employee retention or profits are indicators of an engaged workforce. In my view, however, they are lagging indicators. Having employees leaving a company in droves, for example, tells you a lot about the quality of the workplace. Although accurate, do we really want to wait for the “corporate heart attack” of a mass exodus to tell us whether employees are engaged?

As we say in Nebraska, this would be a case where the cow would already be out of the barn.

Most of our clients want information about employee perceptions before they do something like leave the company, which is why a well designed employee engagement survey process can get to the core of employee issues so something can be done.

Additionally, metrics like employee turnover, when it comes to employee engagement, are crude and rudimentary at best. For example, we may have two productive people who left our employ, but the reasons why each left could be very different. Consider:

  • Did they have difficulty with their manager, that they weren’t appreciated and valued?
  • Did they not feel like they had opportunities to develop their career?
  • Were they burnt out and wanted more balance in their life?
  • Did they lose confidence and trust in the senior leadership of the company?
  • Or, in the case of a few folks, was it all of the above and more?

Productive employees leave for many reasons, and a metric showing the percent of employees leaving won’t give us the information we need to understand and address the problem(s). Just because we have a metric called employee turnover gives us little, if any, insight into why valued employees left. We need more data, which we can get from tools like a well-crafted employee engagement survey or exit interview. (Warning, here’s a shameless promotion: My colleague and friend Leigh Branham conducted a wonderful study on why good employees leave, and found seven common reasons. You can learn more by checking out his book, The 7 Hidden Reasons Employees Leave, and his web site: Keeping The People.)

And just how “lagging” is employee turnover as an indicator? According to Leigh’s research, many employees begin their deliberations about leaving their employer weeks, if not months, before they actually turn in their letter of resignation.

The cow is not only out of the barn, it’s in the next county.

It would be much better to get working on these issues before the bad news of the loss of a valued employee finally hits the radar screen. And mind you, a good engagement survey can only act as a guide for a well-intentioned leader to take the steps to address employee concerns.  The data can start some conversations or act as the impetus for asking questions for which the answers may not very pleasant. The clients we serve appreciate having data that can act as a guide for their actions before the problem of a mass departure that make the Exodus look like a petty spat.

And speaking of the engagement data, we see a significant dip in results regarding so-called “intent-to-stay”, suggesting that more disgruntled employees may be planning their departure as economic conditions get better and they start thinking about greener pastures. There is an increasingly larger group of employees who are “sullen and near mutiny”. We ought to be very concerned about that, concerned enough we start acting now.

*****************

Mr. Hebert raises another important question about employee engagement surveys. He is concerned that many employee engagement survey studies report only correlations between survey results and business results, such as improved retention or increases in per person productivity. He contends that just because something is correlated does not mean that there is evidence of causality— that just because two factors are correlated doesn’t necessarily mean one causes the other.

This is a very important argument. Returning to the world of health care for a moment, medical science has provided evidence that high blood pressure and bad cholesterol ratios cause certain medical conditions.  In the case of cholesterol, our government has been studying a community in Massachusetts for over fifty years and gathered mounds of data that provides evidence of causality, so we can are more convinced that this case has been firmly established and will act accordingly. This is good science, and we take the results of these tests seriously when we get this information.

There are other medical conditions where medical science established a correlation between two variables, but later found there was not causality. One of my favorite stories about having correlation without causality occurred in the early part of the twentieth century: the U.S. government put out a warning that there was a correlation between consuming a certain food, ice cream of all things, and an increase in polio.

Before you put down your spoonful of Rocky Road, eating ice cream doesn’t make contract get polio.

Polio is simply more virulent in the summer, when we also happen to eat more ice cream. So eating ice cream and an increase in polio are correlated, but there is not causality.

Let’s be clear– you cannot have causality with out correlation, but just because you have correlation does not mean you will always have causality. Kindly keep this in mind as you review any kind of research, because the distinction is important and can make a differnce.

Let us return to Mr. Hebert. He contends that although there may be a correlation between a workplace that has a higher engagement survey and higher business results that these variables are not causal, that there is no evidence that a more engaged workplace as measured by an engagement survey causes increased business results.

Actually, there is.

Several researchers have taken the additional steps to provide evidence of causality. Here’s one, from the consulting group Mercer. A report from the Conference Board, published in 2006, said this about the study:

Their most significant finding was that employee engagement increases preceded overall financial measure, strongly implying a causal relationship between engagement and financial achievement.

Yes, they use the word “imply”, you’ve got me there. Establishing causality is a far more difficult process, particularly because of the time required to conduct a study where evidence of causality is established. More studies will come, and I’m confident they’ll continue to make this case.

Perhaps the best evidence I can offer, which isn’t correlated or causal but merely anecdotal, comes from companies Leigh and I have had the opportunity to study that have been recognized as “Best Places to Work”. Our friends at Quantum Workplace recently asked whether these winning companies saw a relationship between employee engagement and customer satisfaction/loyalty. As Peter Drucker so deftly observed, there is no other purpose for a business beyond the acquisition and maintenance of a customer, so this would be a pretty important linkage to explore, right? Here are a few of the responses:

We post an e-mail address at the entrance to each of our properties that solicits guest feedback. As an example, one of our hotels honored as a Best Place to Work generates a disproportionate number of guest compliments relative to their peer properties in the company. In our industry, our goal is to meet or exceed our guest’s expectations. If we don’t have a great workplace, with engaged associates, we cannot expect a positive guest experience.

Customer service is the largest facet of everyone’s job here. Many of our employees field more than 75 calls per week. If they aren’t happy to be at work, that is, if they feel uncomfortable in their work environment, it will certainly come through in their tone. How many times have you been waited on by someone who was aggravated, stressed, or just couldn’t care less about their job? I’m sure their service was less than desirable. We want our employees to enjoy coming to work so that our customers will enjoy speaking with them.

We do very little marketing at my firm. Most of our business comes from existing clients and referrals. That is only possible if the people that are delivering the service are competent, motivated and engaged in exceeding our client’s expectations.

There is no question that a high satisfaction level in your employees translates directly to high satisfaction in your customers. When you think of yourself, your best days are when you are most satisfied with your work; this directly translates into how you deal with people.

The insights of these engaged workplaces will help us focus on the elements we should continue studying.

Although I’m in the business of selling employee engagement surveys and associated consulting services, I’ve advised many an employer to not conduct such an assessment. Does that surprise you? It shouldn’t, because there are many employers who ought not. Leaders who really don’t care about creating an engaging workplace should not conduct such a survey, because when they conduct the survey they are setting an expectation that something is actually going to happen as a result of the survey. If leaders conduct a survey and don’t do anything about the results they will actually make engagement, however you define or measure it, worse.

To me, that’s management malpractice.

Whether a company conducts an engagement survey, employees deserve leaders who listen to their concerns and are willing to take bold steps to build a great workplace. An engagement survey is a tool, nothing more and nothing less, which can help leaders who have the right intentions and are willing to put in the work necessary to build a great workplace.

Mr. Hebert’s post raises some important questions that warrant further discussion. We need to be smart about the kind of metrics to which we pay attention. More importantly, we need leaders who will take this information and use it in the right way, an assumption we should not overlook. Good data in the hands of a misguided leader can produce horrible results as well.

*****************

There’s been a terrific discussion going on at Talent Anarchy about the use of metrics in this field, and Leigh and I were pleased to be given the opportunity to provide a guest post-hope you’ll check it out.

(pic courtesty http://www.sxc.hu/photo/72200)

[i] Employee Engagement: A Review of Current Research and Its Implications, by John Gibbons, The Conference Board, 2006.

Tags:

Webinar on Re-Engage

24 Jan

I recently conducted a webinar with Quantum Workplace on some of the main elements of our research into employee engagement. I talk about some important trends we see that you need to pay attention to and manage:

  • Employee engagement in difficult times,
  • The impact of generational diversity on employee engagement,
  • How organizational size impacts employee engagement,
  • Whether senior leaders can influence engagement, and
  • The changing role of employee benefits in creating a great workplace.

Tags: , , ,

Two Very Different Ways to Feel Lucky, by Leigh Branham

13 Nov

A post from my colleague and co-author Leigh Branham:

Surveys that have tracked levels of employee engagement since the recession started continue to confirm Quantum Workplace’s findings that employee engagement levels have declined in most companies.  Quantum’s results, based on a comparison of surveys completed in September, 2008, when the economy imploded, and just three months later, revealed that two-thirds of employers saw engagement scores go down, while the other third’s scores actually went up (for insights into how these employers actually increased engagement during tough times, see Chapter Two of Re-Engage).

Both Watson-Wyatt and Hewitt have released surveys showing significant drops in employee engagement over the last two years.  Hewitt’s research reported that 46% of organizations experienced a decline in engagement levels the quarter ending June, 2010, while just 30% saw an improvement.

There’s no longer any doubt that declining engagement among the workforce, triggered by layoffs, job insecurity, overwork of those remaining, reductions in benefits, and paltry pay increases, is having a longer-term detrimental effect.  When Mark and I speak with employees and audiences about engagement and retention initiatives in their companies, many still say that the message they keep hearing from managers is “You should feel lucky to have a job.” 

Of course, anyone with a job should feel lucky when one in ten are unemployed and another seven percent have given up looking for work.  An “attitude of gratitude” is psychologically healthy.  And it’s true that some employees have unrealistic expectations, exaggerated opinions about their own capabilities, and an excessive sense of entitlement.  These employees may need to be reminded to step back and consider their good fortune.  But what about the rest of the workforce?  When they hear those words, are they more motivated?  Apparently not, when most studies find that 60-75% of the U.S. workforce is not engaged.  What concerns me is that many managers seem to feel that telling employees how lucky they are seem to think so.  Even worse, they may even be thinking that saying those words is all they have to do.

It’s almost as if employers have been using the economic downturn as their primary retention strategy.  There is a price to be paid for this approach.  According to exhaustive workforce report released by Deloitte, about one half of the workforce are considering leaving their current jobs, and almost a third are actively looking for work elsewhere.  As the economy slowly recovers, a tipping point will be reached, and a new wave of employee turnover will begin.

In our analysis of “Best-Place-to-Work” winning employers during the last two years, we detected early on a very different message coming from the mouths of employees in these elite organizations.  That message–“I feel so lucky to work here,” reflects a different kind of gratitude.  Employees of companies with the highest engagement scores don’t just feel lucky to have a job, they feel lucky to work in a culture that truly values, respects, and develops them.

One of those winning workplaces is Winchester Hospital, in Winchester, Massachusetts, which built a great workplace by training their managers not to avoid difficult conversations by building their skills and confidence to have those conversations successfully.  They even used their HR staff as coaches, so when a manager needs to prepare for a difficult conversation, they  are available to “rehearse” the conversation with them.  The result–a culture of openness, honesty, and trust that has become the talk of nurses and hospital workers in the community.  Winchester ranks in the 90th percentile in the state in patient satisfaction, enjoys an 87% occupancy rate, an eight percent turnover rate, and an unheard of two percent nurse vacancy rate.  In spite of having to reduce patient volume during the recession, and having to reduce staff hours as a result, Winchester was named the Best Place to Work in Boston in its size category for the second year in a row.

Such practices are available to any employer, but it tales the right mindset to implement them.  At a time when many so employees at your competitors are feeling unlucky and despise where they work, what better time earn their loyalty and admiration?

Tags: ,

Why Top Employers Are Talent Magnets

29 Oct

My co-author Leigh Branham contributed to a terrific article posted at Investors.com on the topic of how more engaged employers attract talented people to their workplaces. The companies profiled in the article build great cultures, an asset that helps them win in the marketplace. The article concludes:

The top five companies to work for stress “employee engagement and encourage (employees) to take initiative, not wait to be told something and not perform a job in a rote way,” Branham said. The upside is that involved employees boost bottom-line results and encourage customer loyalty.

Tags: ,

Time CAN Fly

1 Oct

Can time really fly?

I’m not a physicist, so tackling such a weighty question is probably above my pay grade. But when you listen to employees who are engaged in their work, who have a passion for what they do and are supported by leaders who care for them and support their development, you begin to wonder if great workplaces begin to break the laws of physics.

I had the pleasure of facilitating a workshop on self-engagement recently, and one participant talked about how time really does seem to fly for her:

I just love working here. There are days I get so engrossed in what I’m doing that I look up and can’t believe it’s five o’clock! Sure, there are times that get stressful, but most days time flies by.

I contrast that with other folks I’ve interviewed who are not engaged at work. For them time doesn’t fly. They say:

Work is so boring. It seems like it takes forever. Time just drags.

I know where I’d rather be, don’t you?

If time isn’t flying in your work, may you need to think about whether you’re really engaged. To give you a sense of your self engagement you can complete, at no cost, our Self-Engagement Survey.  You can also download a report that shows how engaged you are compared to employees at hundreds of other companies.

Want time to fly by at work? Get re-engaged.

Tags: ,

What Goes Into Employee Engagement?

7 Sep

At the Benz Communications blog you’ll find an interview I did with Jennifer Benz on employee engagement and some of the important issues around creating and maintaining a great workplace.

I’ve learned a lot from Jen. She and her team have passion and deep expertise in employee benefits communications. As we go through this significant transformation in health insurance reform it is even more important to create and maintain an open dialog with employees. You can follow her in Twitter, like I do: @jenbenz!

Tags: ,

The Alchemy of Great Leaders—Turning Pewter into Gold

29 Aug

I used to work for a company that had a monthly recognition program for employees in my particular role. To be recognized took a lot of work. Although all of us were eligible each month for the award it wasn’t likely you would be recognized every time. But any of us who achieved the specified level of production were publically acknowledged at a monthly celebration.

There was also a tangible gift for those who achieved this level of performance—a pewter goblet.

The goblets are gorgeous. When you pick them up they feel heavy, substantial, like a goblet you might see on King Arthur’s table. And after you got twelve of these goblets you also received a silver serving tray, suitable for use with your nicest china on those special occasions when such finery is required.

Sounds pretty nice, right?

The pewter goblets are impressive, truly. Here’s the problem with pewter goblets around my house… we have gold ware for our fine china. Pewter goblets look great with silverware, but they look horrible with gold ware. For my extraordinary efforts I was awarded a dozen of these beautiful goblets, but have no use for them. Mind you, I’m not Amy Vanderbilt or Martha Stewart, but they just don’t look good together. To enjoy my pewter goblets, I need King Arthur’s pal Merlin to wave his magic wand and turn the pewter to gold.

I need an alchemist.

But, alas, no such luck, so we never used the pewter goblets. Last I checked they’re sitting in a box in our basement, twenty years of dust their only companion. Beautiful as they might be they are of little use to us, so are stowed away with sentimental baby clothes and old family photos.

I’ve witnessed hundreds of stories just like my goblet dilemma. A former client had an outstanding salesperson, who consistently was the number one producer in the organization. The manager thought the best way to recognize him was with an ornate, nicely engraved plaque. It would say “Salesperson of the Year”. The salesperson could hang it on his office wall so everyone could see what a remarkable producer he was, thought the manager.

Turns out the guy doesn’t like plaques.

The plaque never made it onto the office wall. It’s stuck in a drawer somewhere. I don’t need pewter goblets, and this gentleman doesn’t care for plaques. Getting recognition right can make all the difference in the world. It doesn’t take all that much effort, but great leaders are up to the task. The best leaders recognize their employees based not on what they might like but what would be meaningful to the employee. They know:

  • Some people like plaques, others don’t.
  • Some folks like public recognition, and there others (including yours truly) who would rather receive recognition in private.
  • Some employees would appreciate even more contact from their manager as a result of their success, while others would prefer to be left alone.
  • Some whose work has been outstanding would like to be considered for promotion opportunities, while others have more of an interest in finding ways they can grow in their current role.
  • Some of us like pewter goblets and some of us just throw them in the basement.

We are motivated uniquely; we have our own “definition of success”, if you will. What means a great deal to one person can mean nothing to another. Here’s one employee who doesn’t ask for much, but even a simple form of appreciation is lacking:

“I feel that my position does not get the credit it deserves. I would like more personal recognition for a job well done from our team leader. Just verbal praise would be fine but it just does not happen. I’m basically ignored, even though my fellow team members say I’m the most competent project manager in the firm.”

Contrast that with this employee, who is interested in further career opportunities:

“My manager encourages employees to reach out of their departments and grow in other roles if they would like to do so, which is what I want to do. She’s happy with those who want to stay in this role, but is very encouraging and supportive if we have other career goals.”

We spend so much time at work. Most of us work very hard, trying to do a good job. We certainly can, and should, take satisfaction from our efforts, even when they are not noticed by others. Having said that, each of us is wired a bit differently when it comes to how we feel most appreciated. If we’re going to spend all this time working, why not let folks around us know how we like to be recognized? And if we have the privilege of leading others, why not spend some time learning how to best recognize each of the folks that work for you?

So what happened to the salesperson who didn’t like plaques? He truly didn’t like plaques. He did, however, have two daughters who were very important to him, so when he won ”salesperson of the year” yet again the next year his manager surprised him with a professional photograph of his daughters, which the manager had beautifully framed. To this day, that photo hangs on the mantle of the salesperson’s home. He was so taken by the award he told the manager that the day he received the photo was “one of the most important days of my life”. The manager told us the photo didn’t cost much more than the plaque, and has paid for itself a thousand times over.

When this manager took time to learn about what really motivated his colleague and presented him with that photo he did something very special. He proved that the alchemists of old were right. He did something that chemists say you can’t do. He took something of little value and made it precious. He recognized an employee in a way that touched his very soul. That turned an ordinary, predictable task into an unforgettable experience.

He turned pewter into gold.

Tags: ,

Diana: A Lesson in “Discretionary Effort”

23 Aug

The receptionist said: “You look lost.  Can I help you sir?”

I travel a lot for my work, and am often in foreign places where, in truth, I am lost. This was one of those days.

Lots of receptionists have seen the “gee-I-hope-I’m-in-the-right-place” look on the face of people they encounter. Some turn a blind eye to we directionally challenged people or, even worse, make us feel like we’re bothering them by asking for help. But on this particular occasion the receptionist, Diana, actually seemed concerned that I was lost.

“Thanks for asking. I’m supposed to be joining a meeting here, and I need to find my host”, I said.

To my surprise and delight Diana got up from behind her desk, smiled, and said: “The meeting is upstairs. Let me walk with you.”

As we were proceeding up the stairs she asked me where I was from and how long I would be in town. For an old road warrior like me such kindness is a true gift. As we neared the top of the stairs I saw my host. I thanked Diana and said goodbye, my day much the better for her efforts.

In our profession we talk a lot about “discretionary effort” as the critical outcome of a more engaged workplace. Here’s how a 2006 study conducted by The Conference Board describes employee engagement:

A heightened emotional and intellectual connection that an employee has for his/her job, organization, manager, or coworkers that in turn, influences him/her to apply additional discretionary effort to his/her work.

That term “discretionary effort” is descriptive, but feels a bit clinical to folks. Diana was showing the behaviors of an engaged employee. That’s why encounters like I had with her can serve as a reminder of what employee engagement is all about. Diana made several choices (discretionary effort) in her interaction with me—getting up from behind the desk and walking with me up the stairs with me is beyond what I had expected from our exchange.

By the way, the meeting I was attending was part of the leadership development program for an organization that had me as a guest speaker talking about —you guessed it— employee engagement. The organization is doing a lot of great things in building a more engaged workplace. I told the group of my encounter with Diana. They were pleased to know that their efforts to build on great place to work are making a difference.

Most workplaces have these moments, these glimpses, of an engaged employee making a difference for a customer or client, who show their appreciation by coming back often and telling their friends—the payoff for the efforts in engaging employees. Those whom we profile In Re-Engage are better at creating an environment where they happen far more frequently.

How are you managing to those moments?

Tags: , , ,

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →