CK Prahalad died last week– he will be missed. Here’s a short interview.
The Twig Moved: A Lesson In Leadership
19 Apr
In the 2000 movie The Legend of Bagger Vance Matt Damon’s character, playing in a competitive golf tournament, sees his ball shift slightly as he moves a leaf away which, according to rules of the game, is a penalty. He does the right thing and calls a penalty on himself, adding to the drama of the movie and the honor of the Damon character.
Real life and art came together this past weekend when professional golfer Brian Davis, in a sudden death playoff to win his first PGA event, saw his ball move when he apparently touched a loose twig during his backswing. He promptly stopped, and after deliberation with an official (who didn’t see the violation, nor did his playing partner) called a two-stroke penalty on himself. Afterward Davis remarked: “It was one of those things I thought I saw movement out of the corner of my eye. And I thought we’d check on the TV, and indeed there was movement.”
Brian Davis penalized himself and lost the golf tournament, but won the admiration of fans and peers. The eventual winner, Jim Furyk, said: “To have the tournament come down that way is definitely not the way I wanted to win. It’s obviously a tough loss for him and I respect and admire what he did.”
One of the unique aspects of golf is that players can, and often do, penalize themselves. Players are asked to help in enforcing the rules of the game. Brian Davis did that. To many what happened–a small twig moving slightly on his backswing-may not seem like a grave infraction. But the rules of the game are designed to make sure no golfer gets an unfair advantage over other players, and moving a loose impediment near the golf ball might do that. Ergo, it’s a rule and there’s a penalty and Brian Davis, in spite of the obvious consequences to himself, called the penalty and lost the match.
In the course of writing Re-Engage we saw a significant difference in leaders at highly engaged companies. We identified seven differentiators between leaders at winning Best-Places-to-Work employers. One of those differentiators is trust in the honesty and integrity of senior leaders. Listen to employees where engagement is low comment about a lack of trust based on shaky integrity:
“I’ve seen my managers lie to their employees about their loss of benefits and other issues.”
“Although the CIO says he has no plans for outsourcing, there have been at least two meetings with large international outsourcing companies.”
“Human Resources is often rude, disrespectful and dishonest. I feel like if I were to have a problem with a manager that would require HR’s attention, I could not trust them to keep my name confidential or to appropriately address my concerns.”
“The upper members of the management team are not forthcoming. They give an air of suspicion and distrust to their employees. Fishing for information to use against each other is not an appropriate tactic.”
Contrast these comments from employees who feel a strong bond of trust with their leaders:
“I’ve worked in environments where I didn’t entirely trust the CEO and management, which is why working here is so refreshing. I believe the management team has a lot of integrity, and it’s genuine.”
“I believe leadership is honest and provide crucial information about the current state of our industry in light of the economic down turn. This transparency has kept me here.”
“I grew up with my grandfather. He had his own business in which he regarded honestly and integrity an important aspect of his business. Our CEO leads with those same traits. I have the highest regard and complete trust in the leadership here. I am also confident that next generation of leaders will lead in the same manner as we continue towards the future.”
Over the past few years we’ve had more than our share of dishonest leaders. In the wake of all the corporate scandals I’m sure there are some laws that could help reduce the chance that executives could bilk us.
But what might really help is if more leaders acted like golfer Brian Davis.
They would act like the rules meant something and policed themselves. They would call a penalty even for the slightest of infractions, because they know that any violation is a violation, plain and simple.
When the “twig moves” a penalty is assessed.
According to our research leaders at winning workplaces seem more likely to have figured that out, which leads to greater loyalty and effort from their employees. Want to be a better employer that is revered by employees, customers and shareholders? When the twig moves, do the right thing.
The Power of Following Up
16 Apr
My colleagues Merle Riepe, Danielle Seymour and I recently wrote an article about the importance of following up on employee engagement survey results. We know that when you conduct a survey you are setting an expectation that something is going to happen, and leaders who have engagement surveys conducted where they work should be aware of what is at stake if you don’t follow up. The research we conducted on this topic is compelling.
Follow-Up: The Power of Positive Feedback Woody Allen is famously quoted as saying “Eighty percent of success is showing up.” We’re pretty sure there’s more to it than that, but when it comes to developing a more engaged workforce, Mr. Allen is actually on to something. Read the full SilverLink article from SilverStone Group’s website.
Gaylord Hotel Opryland
15 AprOne of the companies we feature in Re-Engage is Gaylord Hotels. They are a frequent winner of Best Places to Work events. The Travel Channel featured their Opryland property for their Christmas program– looks fun!
12 Myths About Employee Engagement
5 Apr
My partner Leigh Branham recently wrote a wonderful piece about some of the most common misconceptions about employee engagement. In the course of writing Re-Engage we began to realize how much “myth” there was about employee engagement. For a terrific discussion of the myths and reality of employee engagement check out Leigh’s article here.
Why Some Managers Don’t Believe in Employee Engagement
1 Apr
by Leigh Branham
I was following a thread of posts on LinkedIn recently on the topic of employee engagement, and was a little taken aback by the following statement from one contributor to the lively conversation:
“Some managers don’t believe in employee engagement.”
Yep, I knew it was true. Yet, my rational/advocate self asked, “how could they NOT believe in employee engagement?! Engaged employees are both more satisfied and more productive. Don’t we all know this by now?! Engaged employees get better results and please more customers and clients. An overwhelming body of research shows the strong linkage between employee engagement and business success (for more go to Keeping The People). And besides, engaged employees make their managers look better! Not to mention the fact that there simply not enough of them—most surveys show the average percentage of engaged employees in U.S. workplaces ranging between only about 25% and 40%. So, wouldn’t you think all managers would be straining at the bit to raise the engagement levels of their direct reports?!
Nope…and for some reasons that are at least understandable, if not defensible. Here are the ones I’ve identified or heard managers express before:
Reason No. 1: “It’s not my job to keep employees engaged!…They should already BE engaged!”
This one’s hard to disagree with. There’s no denying that all employees should know it’s in their best interest to give their best effort on the job each day. I believe that most employees start out engaged on day one and stay that way until some triggering event sends them down the road to disengagement…until and unless something is done to re-engage them. Of course, some of those we hire will never fall into the fully-engaged category. But then, as hiring managers, we have to accept responsibility of hiring those people and for, all-too-often, hiring warm bodies rather than having the patience and persistence to seek and find the right person.
Employees must know that engagement is a shared responsibility and own their part of the equation. But ultimately, all managers need to accept that it IS the job of managers to maximize employee performance, which means doing everything possible to keep employees engaged.
Managers have control over five of the six Universal Engagement Drivers that Mark Hirschfeld and I write about in our new book, Re-Engage. The driver they don’t control? It’s Senior Leaders—leaders who care enough to hold managers accountable for keeping employees engaged! So, as we have seen in so many workplaces, the commitment and the mindsets that distinguish winning workplace cultures have to start at the top and cascade down.
Reason No. 2: “Employees are too entitled already…they should feel lucky to have a job!”
Chances are you’ve heard this one lately. Usually, it’s said by a Boomer or X’er manager about a Millennial (GenY) employee. Entitlement isn’t necessarily age-related, but the rap on Millennials—born from 1981 to 1995 (or thereabouts), is that they were over-praised and over-parented by their mostly Boomer parents. Ironic isn’t it? Remember the Fortune magazine cover of a couple of years ago—“You Raised ‘Em, Now You Manage ‘Em”?
There’s just enough truth there to make this one stick. Many Millennials expect far more coaching, feedback, instant gratification, and recognition than their parents did, which inspires the following reaction from many Boomer managers: “Who do they think they are?!” or “They need to get real!” or “Nobody ever had to keep me engaged!” As one Boomer CEO told me about three years ago, “What these youngsters need is a good recession!” Well, he certainly got his wish. No doubt many Millennials are indeed getting a wake-up call and learning to feel fortunate to have jobs in the current economy.
Younger employees will always need to adjust their unrealistic expectations. Still, there’s another side to the coin—because of the way they grew up, with new technologies that conditioned them to expect more immediate responses, Millennials will continue to expect more of the same from the workplace as they age. They want to be engaged, but their managers will need to let go of the “My way good…your way bad” mentality and meet them halfway.
Both sides need to give a little—managers, for example, need to challenge Millennials to keep themselves engaged while giving a little more frequent feedback, and understand that not all feedback needs to be criticism. For their part, Millennials need to adjust their expectations to workplace realities while learning to ask for feedback when they need it instead of feeling quietly victimized, and to understand that not all feedback is praise. (It needs to be said here that these are stereotypical generalizations that may not apply to many Boomers or Millennials, and, as we emphasize in Re-Engage, individual uniqueness trumps generational membership.)
Again, this reason is no excuse. The job description of manager still includes keeping employees engaged, which today means confronting entitlement when it’s unreasonable while knowing that engagement requires meeting certain human needs in the workplace, regardless of what generation a person grew up in. Mostly, managers need to focus on removing the impediments, irritations, and barriers that frustrate the otherwise self-engaged employee.
Reason No. 3: “I’ve got too much to do already!”
As we know, the recent spate of corporate downsizings has only increased the amount of work for many managers. Brian Kropp, an analyst with the Corporate Executive Board, has reported that the average manager worked about 10 percent more hours a week in the first half of 2009 compared with the first half of 2008, but spent 20 percent less time with their team members. A CEB survey found that 60 percent of employees said they had a change in manager in the past six months or expect one in the coming six months, thus reducing the long-term commitment to employee coaching and mentoring. The degree of difficulty only gets worse with the increasing adoption of matrix reporting relationships that leave employees uncertain about who their real “manager” is.
What to do about it? It seems we have three choices: 1) senior leaders can reconsider their decisions to downsize in response to business declines and consider other options, such as cutting back employee work hours, as many companies have done to avoid laying people off; 2) make it clearer than ever to managers that their real job is not “to do”, but to lead, manage, and delegate to the people who “do.” This may mean streamlining business processes, off-loading some work to consultants, temps, or part-timers, and conducting people management skill-building training for managers who have not developed those critical interpersonal skills. This alternative requires that senior leaders also find ways to hold managers accountable for demonstrating these skills. Selecting and promoting managers who have these skills in the first place would also go a long way toward addressing this issue; and 3) equip all employees with the information, autonomy, training, resources, tools, feedback, challenge, and responsibility they need to be self-engaging, while reminding them that they need to focus on supporting their managers, taking as much as they can off the overworked manager’s desk, and demonstrating their value to the organization as the key to job security.
What Kind of Sandbox Are You Playing In?
30 Mar
In studying employers who are recognized as “Best-Places-to-Work” we’ve identified effective teamwork (not “us” versus “them”) as one of the six critical drivers of employee engagement. Winning workplaces know how to make sure that everyone in the corporate sandbox knows how to work together effectively and, when necessary, manage the healthy conflict that inevitably comes when talented folks are brought together with a common goal.
I’m reminded of one youngster, Micah, who would be given the award “best kid in the sandbox” if such an accolade existed. He is intent on making sure that each of his playmates has a toy and hugs anyone who falls down and gets hurt. And when it’s time to sit down for the morning milk and cookie snack he turns into helper extraordinaire. Micah is only three, but he could teach a few employers we know about cooperation, team cohesiveness and productivity. Consider the following employees who see the “sandbox” where they work as one where arm-twisting, name-calling, and you-stole-my-shovel behavior is the norm:
“A lot of the individuals in the group are not team players. They do things to only benefit themselves. They do not cooperate nor does the manager make them. Workloads are not shared or distributed equally. The manager does not get involved.”
“The stress level here is high and the pressure put on by the department leaders just make it harder to do your job. We all know our jobs in most cases what is needed to do them and do them right. But you have team leaders making life hell just to hear their own voices.”
On the other hand, many employers have developed cultures where the sandbox seems quite civil:
“We can turn to each other for help, or to ask if another team member has run into a similar problem and how the problem was solved. Our team works well together, and if one of us gets stuck with a project, the other one will either volunteer to help, or if that is not possible, will take some of the workload, so we don’t get behind.”
“This place rocks. I took a cut in pay from my big corporate employer to come and work someplace where people believe in what they are working towards and enjoy coming to work. I feel bad for those that dread going to work each morning. Smartest move I’ve made in my professional career.”
The industrialist Henry Ford said: “Coming together is a beginning. Keeping together is progress. Working together is success.” Winning workplaces create engaging cultures characterized by success in getting employees to work together. How’s your workplace culture? Is it a “kick sand in your face” or “build sand castles” kind of culture? In a world that is getting smaller every day, through globalization, new technologies, telecommuting, remote locations, and social networking, it makes a world of difference.
The Scarcity Mindset
21 Mar
We read a lot these days that some of the natural resources important to our economy and way of life are becoming scarcer. With this scarcity the price of these commodities will increase as supply outpaces demand. Good stewardship suggests that conservation of these precious assets would be in our best interests.
We don’t doubt the veracity of these claims and the associated mindset when it comes to managing the world’s natural resources, but this scarcity mentality has crept into the thinking of many leaders when it comes to an important tool at their command– recognizing employees for their contributions.
Here are the voices of two employees from an engagement survey whose leaders apparently see recognizing and listening to employees as if it were the planet’s last barrel of crude oil:
“If employees try to help in the growth of the firm and they were listened to by the authority of this place it might be something more and they would not need to be changing employees frequently. Along with that everyone should be recognized for the good they do.”
“Company does not recognize you for hard work and a job well done. They do not value loyalty.”
Many of us know how demoralizing a work environment like this can be, where employees work hard and nobody seems to be paying attention. When it comes to hoarding recognition like a scarce resource we hear feeble dodges such as these from less-than-effective managers: “You don’t want to recognize people because it will just go to their heads.” Or “if you recognize people this time they’ll expect recognition all the time.”
Baloney.
The philosopher Cicero said “We are motivated by a keen desire for praise, and the better a man is, the more he is inspired by glory.” The employees whose comments we present below obviously respond to leaders who understand what Cicero was saying. As a result, they see their workplaces in a much more positive light, and are no doubt far more engaged:
“I knew that I wanted to work here when I first visited this office. The atmosphere is young, exciting, and full of energy. It is an amazing mix of fun and hard work where creativity is encouraged and accomplishment recognized and celebrated.”
This place has great energy. It truly functions like a family of people who really care about each other, respect their work but also challenge their peers. The bar is set quite high but it’s an incredibly healthy work environment. And hard work is recognized and rewarded.”
These last two comments are common at highly engaged employers, and we don’t believe it’s by luck or chance they often use phrases such as “full of energy” when describing their place of work. Leaders at these companies know that recognition, properly used in an engaging culture, actually generates more vigor, more pride, and more of the get-up-and-go our places of work so desperately need.
Recognition– a leader’s plentiful, non-toxic, renewable energy source.
Dirty Rotten Scoundrel…or Engaging Leader?
1 Mar“Dirty Rotten Scoundrels”.
You may recall this movie co-starring Steve Martin and Michael Caine and directed by Frank Oz-terrific title. Sadly, it is also an all-too-common synopsis of how employees at many workplaces feel about the individuals who hold leadership positions where they work.
In Re-Engage we identify seven themes that differentiate senior leaders who have created highly engaged workplaces from those leaders who can fairly be called “dirty, rotten scoundrels”. The most engaging leaders:
1. Use their personal power to engage and are committed to creating a great workplace,
2. Inspire confidence in their decisions and direction,
3. Build trust through their honesty and integrity,
4. Practice open, two-way communication,
5. Shun the temptations of executive greed and strive to pay fairly,
6. Genuinely value employees as people, and
7. Lead with respect, not coercion, control, fear, or intimidation.
To illustrate these themes, here are a few comments from employees who must live under opposite conditions–the oppression of leaders whose actions have led to highly disengaged employees:
“They cut out our benefits when the company shows no signs of slowing; blaming the economy, yet managers still got their bonuses.”
“Leaders are exploiting us to the fullest in order to increase company profits.”
“I feel that the company doesn’t value its employees. They demand things with no benefit or feedback from the employees.”
“The entire country is in financial stress and yet somehow this company manages to find a way to place the lack of sales on its employees.”
“There is very little trust that the managers will follow through with promised rewards and a general feeling of not being valued. Being told that we are ‘lucky to have a job’ makes people feel like they are being taken advantage of because they have no other choice.”
The leaders of these employees should heed the words of the great U.S. general and President Dwight Eisenhower, who said: “You do not lead by hitting people over the head – that’s assault, not leadership.” Employees at disengaged workplaces are judging their leaders guilty of assault, and the productivity and engagement of employees suffers as a result.
We admonish every leader to examine the seven themes that differentiate effective leadership as seen through the eyes of employees. You may also want to consider the following questions:
- As you look through this lens, how do you believe your employees view you?
- Do they see you as someone who puts self-interest ahead of the greater good of the firm?
- Are you providing a clear picture of where the organization is going, and helping employees see their role in that picture?
- Do employees where you work believe they have an opportunity to truly be heard, that their opinions are given due consideration?
- In short, are you seen as a leader who inspires confidence, commitment and extra effort, or as a “dirty, rotten scoundrel”?
Believe us, your employees know the difference.
Margaret Mead and Managing Four Generations At Work
23 Feb(from our book web site: Re-Engage)
The cultural anthropologist Margaret Mead is responsible for coining the term “generation gap”, describing the challenges she saw in the 1970’s between two distinct generations. Those challenges may have become even more difficult, as for the first time in recorded history, we now have four unique generations at work. In conducting our research for Re-Engage we discovered a significant barrier to creating and maintaining an engaged workplace-the more diverse a workplace becomes, the more difficult it is to have a high level of employee engagement. Bringing more so-called Generation Y (aka Millennials) into the workplace to join Generation X, Baby Boomers and Traditionalists makes creating a great workplace much more challenging.
We did, however, identify one hopeful finding that can help an employer overcome this new generation gap-the challenge of a more generationally diverse workforce can be lessened by achieving higher levels of employee engagement. In other words, the more engaged workplaces have fewer spats between the generations. In fact, more engaged workplaces seem to be embracing the generational diversity and using that diversity to their advantage. Consider the following comments:
“The culture of this organization provides you with the opportunity & the atmosphere for success, as well as the tools & training to accomplish corporate & personal goals. Although the firm is privately held, ownership treats all employees as if they are stock holders & shares the fruit of success accordingly. Fortunately, we have numerous second generation employees working here, which is a testament that the first generation approves of the sense of success that future generations will achieve & have promoted the idea that their sons & daughters can achieve personal & professional success at this firm.”
“As part of the executive level management I am inspired by the new generation of leadership at the company. The second generation has taken over the management of the company and has maintained and enhanced the strong culture of the company, a culture with a focus on mutual respect and offering leadership opportunities to younger professionals.”
If we look at the other side of the coin we see employees who don’t feel their employers are doing an effective job of managing an increasingly age-diverse workplace:
“I believe the executive levels should gain a better understanding of the generational diversity within the workforce and the motivators for each group. The company has a lot of ‘unspoken rules’ that are old fashioned and based off of old ideas of what the ideal business person should work and look like.”
“Allow employees to make suggestions that will help benefit the growth of the company and make it more efficient. The mentality of doing what was done 15 years ago is scaring off the younger generation of employees.”
The differences are clear-some companies will succumb to the ghost of Margaret Mead and be crushed by the weight of a more generationally diverse workforce, while others will thrive and prosper in this diversity. Mead offers advice we should apply in helping all generations work and thrive together: “If we are to achieve a richer culture, rich in contrasting values, we must recognize the whole gamut of human potentialities, and so weave a less arbitrary social fabric, one in which each diverse human gift will find a fitting place.”
Mark Hirschfeld 