Category Archives: Developing People

Developing People, Employee Development, Engagement

The “R” Factor

In a past newsletter, Senior Associate Ellen Kendall shared some thought-provoking perspective on the importance of relationships in the workplace – a perspective that has proven to be very accurate over the past two-or-so years.

Somehow along the evolutionary path of business and commerce, it appears some of us became increasingly enamored with the efficiency that a mechanistic and impersonal focus could bring us, and concentrated on using the “hands” of employees at the neglect of
employing their hearts and minds.

We created command and control hierarchical organizations and an emphasis on functional competency and silos. In the process, we lost sight of the human need for connection and interaction and minimized the importance of productive and meaningful relationships.

Or, said another way, in the words of Don Corleone in the movie, The Godfather, “It’s not personal, it’s business.”

But for many the pendulum is swinging back, as more of us are finding that the old attitude about separating business from personal issues no longer serves us well.

In fact, there is increasing belief that becoming more personal in the workplace might actually work to the advantage of organizations; and topics such as trust, interpersonal relationships, engagement, coaching, mentoring, and values-based leadership are now critical in an increasing number of organizations.

Similarly, it is becoming more evident that relationships, and the quality of relationships in the workplace, do matter. For example, Mike Morrison, VP and Dean of Toyota University in an interview went so far as to boldly say, “My message to leaders is actually quite simple: It’s the relationship… stupid!”

He went on to suggest that human capital is useless without relationships — particularly in our fast-paced, global economy — and that leaders can be best measured by their ability to create social capital or the sum total of all their relationships.

“It is through this network of relationships that their work is conducted,” Morrison stated. “As leaders, we need to be relentless relationship-builders and be 100 times more deliberate about relating to people.

“Work is much more relational than it was twenty years ago, when you could have narrow, clearly defined jobs. Those jobs don’t exist anymore… today we get work done through others… in today’s world we achieve results primarily through relationships.”

Morrison concluded that relationships are truly the most effective pathway to the highest levels of commitment, creativity, and performance within organizations. The reason is that positive
relationships have a transformational impact on the individual. They draw out the best in each of us.

Management guru Peter F. Drucker also commented on the need to focus on workplace relationships.

“Increasingly, command and control is being replaced by or intermixed with all kinds of relationships,” he said.

“Alliances, joint ventures, minority participations, partnerships, know-how, and marketing agreements… these are all relationships in which no one controls and no one commands. These relationships have to be based on a common understanding of objectives, policies, and strategies; on teamwork; and on persuasion — or they don’t work at all”.

Spring boarding off of these respected viewpoints, we’ll take a deeper dive into the value of the “R” factor in our next post.

Developing People, Performance Management

Managers Should Focus on 5 Key Areas of Clarity

clarity

In a past post we shared insight into the importance of performance management and the impact front line managers have on workforce retention as well as people’s productivity and engagement levels.

In that post, one of the best practices we shared was for managers to set clear expectations. It was also noted that, according to data published by SHRM, only about half of all US employees say they know what is expected from them at work.

Taking this concept a few steps further, there are five key areas in which the most effective managers provide clarity as part of their performance management process:

  1. Clear expectations
  2. Clear capability
  3. Clear measurement
  4. Clear feedback
  5. Clear consequences
Developing People, Engagement

A Good Question About Retaining Talent

retain

We all know that unwanted workforce turnover is disruptive and costly*. In a recent article, fuse, a workforce management firm, shares four of the most common reasons employees opt to leave a job. It’s likely we know these reasons as well…

But the good question posed in the article is whether or not we are taking proactive steps to avoid unwanted turnover!

In case you’d like a quick refresher, the article identified the following as the most common reasons employees leave:

  • Poor relationship with their manager
  • No clear path forward
  • Good work isn’t valued
  • The job doesn’t promote work-life balance

With a little forethought and planning, it shouldn’t be difficult to avoid these pitfalls; and, as the article states, “With the market for skilled talent becoming more and more competitive, smart employers will take stock and do whatever it takes to keep their best and brightest satisfied.”

To add additional perspective, when Gallup announced that the percentage of engaged workers had, for the first time in a very long time, increased just before the pandemic, their research showed that the primary reason for the increase (from 30% to 36%) was that organizations had made improvements in their approach to developing people.

  • the cost of replacing employees is somewhere between 90-200% of their annual salary based on a recent SHRM study!
Continuous Improvement, Developing People, Leadership

Leaders for Today & Tomorrow

leadership
A conceptual look at leadership and associated concepts.

Gallup recently reported a decline in employee engagement across the U.S., and given current times this might not be a big surprise.

However, they also reported that, during times of turmoil, managers are responsible for implementing leadership decisions while motivating their team to get work done, and that a high percentage of these managers are in need of help!

“Manager engagement is on the decline, and burnout is on the rise,” the article said. “Clarity of expectations and opportunities to develop are specifically vulnerable. Like your employees, your front-line managers and supervisors need to feel that they are continually developing in their work and overall life.”

This need has clearly been recognized in the marketplace as, according to data shared by Northeastern University, 58% of U.S. companies say their number one strategic priority is closing their current leadership skill gaps. The study also indicated that many more plan to increase their total spending on leadership development initiatives in the next few years— “now treating professional development as an important component of their business strategy.”

Leadership provides the energy for change and continuous improvement, as well as the commitment to sustain it. Today’s leaders must continually work to hone and refine a range of skills if they are to lead people to higher levels of performance and engagement.

These skills include:

  • Communication and active listening
  • Method of sharing optimism, energy and enthusiasm
  • Empathy
  • Consistency
  • Dependability
  • Motivation
  • Risk assessment
  • Delegation
  • Empowerment

Leaders Without Teams?
Finally, it’s important to note that you don’t need to be in a C-level role to be considered a leader. Strong leaders exist—and are highly valued—at every level of business. These “leaders without teams” often inspire, engage, and influence their colleagues and stakeholders; and they must also be given skill development opportunities, as many will likely become the “official” leaders of tomorrow.

Developing People, Leadership

Developing Leaders

A conceptual look at developing strong leaders

Our previous post referenced recent research indicating that the percentage of engaged workers in the U.S. has risen this past year, and that the primary reason for this increase is that organizations have made positive changes in how they develop their employees.

Carrying that thought a bit further, leaders at all levels within an organization must also be developed in order to bring about sustainable change and improvement. We have always known that it is a person’s immediate supervisor that has the greatest impact on their work experience and engagement level, so it stands to reason that these leaders must be trained and developed so that they can be effective.

To develop strong leaders, we have found the following five steps are critically important:

  1. Training is an ongoing step. Leaders at all levels must understand leadership styles and how to diagnose the circumstances requiring leadership so they can apply the most effective style. Related skills and behaviors also include communication and listening, motivation, delegation, recognition and empowerment.
  2. 360° feedback from peers, staff members and upper management is a popular and insightful component of leadership development.
  3. Coaching in a team environment is an ideal place in which to exercise and improve peoples’ leadership skills, self awareness and ability to build upon strengths.
  4. Individual mentoring can help people analyze personal effectiveness and refine their approach based on actual performance and achievement. Mentors should observe leaders’ performance and conduct personal debriefing sessions. This cycle continues until desired skills and performance levels have have been achieved.
  5. Accountability. All leaders are held accountable for their personal development as well as for developing others.
Continuous Improvement, Developing People, Engagement

Poll Says More Workers are Engaged & Why

A Formula for Engaging People

One of our white papers shares the concept of CPI2, which refers to the combination of Continuous Process Improvement (CPI) and Continuous People Improvement (CPI) as an effective way of boosting both employee engagement and productivity. It is based on the premise that productivity is the key driver of employee engagement (or the employee experience), as people like to feel successful… they like to be part of a winning and productive team… and they like to feel their work is important.

More recently, the concept of CPI2 has been indirectly referenced in an article published by Gallup, which reveals that employee engagement levels reached an all-time high in 2019.

According to their research, the percentage of “engaged” workers in the U.S. reached 35% this past year. While 35% might strike you as a low number, it is actually a new high since Gallup began tracking the metric in 2000.

This increase in engagement levels is good news for all of us…

As you may know, engaged workers are highly involved in their work. They go about their work enthusiastically, they treat customers better, they make a stronger discretionary effort compared to their dis-engaged co-workers, and they are committed to both their work and workplace.

So clearly, the increase in engaged workers is good for employers.

But this increase is also good news for employees and other stakeholders! It’s good news because it shows that the more formalized plans for engaging people are working; it’s good news because it means more people are finding greater levels of fulfillment in their work. As Dr. Deming said, “Management’s overall aim should be to create a system in which everybody may take joy in his work.”

So, it’s also fair to say that this increase in engagement levels is good news because it bears witness to the fact that the process of workforce engagement can yield win-win outcomes for both employers and employees.

Why the Increase?
If you’re wondering why the number of engaged workers has risen, Gallup has a straightforward answer.

“There are several possible explanations for the changes in engagement over the past decade,” the article states. “…and Gallup has reviewed many of these previously, from changes in the economy to slight improvements in some employee benefits. But these factors are not the primary drivers of improved engagement.

“Gallup research indicates that changes in employee engagement are best attributed to changes in how organizations develop employees.“

The article also shares four themes that Gallup’s research identified in organizations with high-development cultures:

  • High-development cultures are CEO- and board-initiated.
  • High-development cultures educate managers on new ways of managing — moving from a culture of “boss” to “coach.”
  • High-development cultures practice company-wide communication.
  • High-development cultures hold managers accountable.

Room for Improvement & CPI2
However, the article also goes on to acknowledge that a 35% engagement percentage is still low.

“The percentage of engaged employees in the U.S. is still far too low,” the article states. “There is plenty of room for improvement… What would the world of work look like if organizations could double the percentage of engaged workers? This isn’t a pie-in-the-sky question — all evidence suggests it is possible. Organizations have been successful, over recent decades, in maximizing process efficiency through Six Sigma and advances in technology and automation — doubling engagement would mean U.S. organizations have matched process efficiency with people efficiency.”

In other words, CPI2.

Read the full article…

Developing People, Engagement

The Real Cost of Disengagement

A young, seemingly fast-rising junior executive had been working at a large bank for just over six years. When he was asked about his job and how he felt about it he said, “The job’s OK.”

His lack of enthusiasm was evident, and when pressed to say more he added, “Well, I’m not really learning much anymore.”

When asked if he was fully-engaged he said probably not but went on to say that he still did a great job. “I still give 100% and consider myself to be a great employee,” he said. Then, after a short pause, he added,” But I don’t give them 110%… and there’s a big difference between 100% and 110% — at least for me.”

When asked if he was out looking for a new position he responded, “No…, but I’m listening.”

When asked whether he told his boss about how he was feeling he said, “Yeah, but….”

How many people in how many places feel like he does? He is bright, educated, skilled, well-liked, and might be an ideal candidate for a senior leadership position…if he stays.

But is he being made to feel like an important part of the team? Does anyone realize that he could be giving more? Is he being engaged in an intentional or formalized fashion?

Among the many documented advantages of an engaged worker are loyalty and the discretionary effort that they put forth; going the extra mile; the above-and-beyond attitude… giving 110%! How many innovative ideas might that extra 10% yield? How much more productivity? What impact might it have on customers or coworkers?

The Real Cost of Disengagement

And if he doesn’t stay, the simple replacement costs are not the real issue. He is a potential super-star! He is a known-entity… trustworthy, dependable, low-risk. What are the real (or hidden!) costs associated with disengagement; the costs of not getting 110%… the costs of not only lost workers, but also of lost opportunities?

Continuous Improvement, Developing People, Performance Management

Performance Management Contrasts

We’ve had some fascinating conversations about performance management over the years, and have found quite a range of formal and not-so-formal approaches, along with variations in defining the process.

But while different organizations may employ different methods, there are a few areas on which most everyone we’ve spoken with enthusiastically agrees:

  • Positive versus punitive performance management works best.
  • Recognition is an important element of managing the performance of individuals.
  • Management must manage the performance of both individuals and processes.
  • Regularly scheduled performance reviews or evaluations of individuals are key and should be conducted more frequently than once each year.
  • Performance evaluations need not be coupled with merit-based or time-based pay raises and, in most cases, are more effective if not coupled with pay raises.

How does your organization define and execute performance management?

 

Developing People, Engagement, Rewards and Recognition

Rewards & Recognition Part 3: Comparisons

As discussed in our previous two posts, “Rewards & Recognition” programs can vary in a many ways.

For example some are very inexpensive to run, and others are costly; some are geared toward recognizing individuals, while others focus on rewarding teams.

Similarly, the reasons for implementing a program can differ a great deal, depending upon an organization’s situation and objectives; and as our Partners in Improvement groups discussed, the outcomes — both intended and otherwise — can also vary.

During our Partners’ discussions three distinct types of programs were compared:

  1. “After-the-Fact” rewards vs. “Defined Benefit” awards:
    Some organizations conduct recognition and reward programs that are designed to ‘catch people’ doing the right things, such as a “caught in the act” program that recognizes individuals by posting a card describing their accomplishments on a wall in the lunch room, or a “Bravo” program for peer-to-peer recognition, where recipients are awarded small gifts — in the $5-10 range.  These systems are designed to encourage certain behaviors and accomplishments — but an individual may or may not
    be one of the lucky ones ‘caught.’ Not every worthy act is rewarded, but the belief is that the program reinforces the
    desired behavior overall.

    Alternatively, some awards are planned in advance, such as an organization that gives one day off to everyone after every 250,000 hours without a lost time accident, or another program that promised a raise to all employees if first pass yield metrics were achieved.  Along the same lines, one organization implemented a partially-defined reward: the reward was defined, the criteria were defined, but there would be only one winner and the identity of that winner would remain uncertain until the end. This prize, in this case, was a one year lease on a BMW for the manager with the best results. The success of this program depended on being well-hyped in advance so that every manager improves his or her results in order to try to win. However, the size of the prize being so significant caused some dissatisfaction among some of the managers who didn’t win.

    Conclusions: both the individual and team concepts are effective. If a “one winner” approach is taken it is best to keep the value of the single award on the lower-end as opposed to awarding one “big” prize such as the above-referenced car lease.

  2. Team Awards vs. Individual Rewards:
    The primary advantage of individual recognition is the precision of being able to reward and recognize a person who best exemplifies the behavior that the organization wants to encourage.  Consider that, on any team, there are bound to be stronger and weaker contributors. The weaker contributors on a strong team are, perhaps, unfairly recognized for contributions they may not have made. Furthermore, the stronger contributors to a weak team are unfairly under-recognized and may become less motivated.  Individual rewards and recognition enable organizations to reward the people they believe most deserve it.

    However, often the success of an operational or project team as a whole is far more important to an organization’s success than the actions of individuals. Recognizing operational teams as well as temporary teams for their contributions encourages effective teamwork, helping one another to get further faster. It takes a mix of talents and personalities to build an effective team and while a team may have one or two stars, the success may also be due to the down-to-earth individual who keeps the group focused or the individual with the easy personality that defuses tensions and egos in order to keep the group working effectively.  Our research into employee engagement suggests that being viewed as an important member of a team is also very motivating. Indeed, in Daniel Pink’s book Drive, The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us, he describes the pleasure people receive from being part of something bigger: a team, a movement, a purpose.

    Conclusions: While the benefits associated with individual rewards were recognized, the vast majority of our Partners expressed strong support for the benefits of team rewards and recognition.

  3. Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Rewards:
    Intrinsic rewards are those that strive to produce a sense of appreciation, belonging, satisfaction or contributing to a higher purpose. Some rewards are free, such as a thank you note, a parking space, or putting a person or team’s picture in the newsletter. Some intrinsic rewards may cost the giver something,
    such as buying a team lunch, giving everyone a day off, and making a contribution to a charity of the person or team’s choice, but these rewards are non-monetary and are not designed to appeal to a person’s acquisitiveness. Rather they emphasize the organization’s appreciation for a person or team’s contribution.

    By contrast, monetary rewards have a simple and clear cash value for the recipient. For example, a grocery chain gives $50 to any individual accumulating six ‘stars’ which are awarded by coworkers or customers to recognize exceptional service. The main advantage of monetary rewards is that, whether the amount is large or small, public or private, before or after
    the fact, one can expect that all recipients will value the reward because the recipient can spend it however they choose.

    Conclusions: While appreciating the clear nature of extrinsic rewards, nearly all of our Partners had a cautionary tale about unintended consequences; and the bigger the reward, the bigger the problems. Unlike rewards aimed at intrinsic motivation, the problem with extrinsic rewards was not that they might fail to influence the recipients, but rather that the outcomes were often entirely different than intended. For example, the organizations that implemented large monetary rewards, such as the BMW lease, found they attracted attention and inspired avarice as intended. Many people really wanted to win them. In fact, a good many people felt they deserved to win them. The unintended results included resentment, accusations of unfairness, and powerful disincentives for people to help one another to raise the overall performance of the organization. Team morale took a serious hit as well.  As one of the Partners put it, “An extrinsic reward seems to create 1 winner and 99 losers.”

Ultimately, our Partners agreed upon a list of best practices, which we will share in our next post.

Continuous Improvement, Developing People, Engagement, Performance Management, Process Improvement

ISO Quality Management Principles – Balancing Process & People

As you may know, in 2015 the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) issued an update to its widely followed 9001 standards. 

This update was not, at the time, officially part of the 9001 standards, but it included the addition of new Quality Management Principles outlining, according to an Engagement Strategies Media (ESM) article, the fundamental conditions necessary for an organization to sustain high levels of quality and performance.

The Quality Management Principles are:
  1. Customer focus
  2. Leadership
  3. Engagement of people
  4. Process approach
  5. Improvement
  6. Evidence-based decision-making
  7. Relationship management

As noted in the article, these principles focus on both “process” and “people/engagement.” As the article goes on to suggest, this balanced focus is clearly necessary to achieve and sustain high levels of quality and performance.

Read the full article…