By David MacLeod
Employees in the UK take an average of 2.69 sick days per year; the disengaged take 6.19. The CBI reports that sickness absence costs the UK economy £13.4bn a year.
Gallup found that engagement levels can be predictors of sickness absence, with more highly engaged employees taking an average of 2.7 days per year, compared with disengaged employees taking an average of 6.2 days per year.
(These extracts are from the recently published government commissioned report by David MacLeod entitled ‘Engaging For Success: Enhancing Performance Through Employee Engagement’.)
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Monday, November 23, 2009
The correlation between engagement and innovation
By David MacLeod
Gallup indicated that higher levels of engagement are strongly related to higher levels of innovation. Fifty-nine per cent of engaged employees say that their job brings out their most creative ideas against only three per cent of disengaged employees.
This finding was echoed in research for the Chartered Management Institute in 2007 which found a significant association and influence between employee engagement and innovation. Based on survey findings from approximately 1,500 managers throughout the UK, where respondents identified the prevailing management style of their organisation as innovative, 92 per cent of managers felt proud to work there.
As Professor Julian Birkinshaw of the London Business School told us: “employee engagement is the sine qua non of innovation. In my experience you can have engaged employees who invest their time in multiple directions (such as servicing clients, creating quality products) but you cannot foster true innovation without engaged employees.”
(These extracts are from the recently published government commissioned report by David MacLeod entitled ‘Engaging For Success: Enhancing Performance Through Employee Engagement’.)
Gallup indicated that higher levels of engagement are strongly related to higher levels of innovation. Fifty-nine per cent of engaged employees say that their job brings out their most creative ideas against only three per cent of disengaged employees.
This finding was echoed in research for the Chartered Management Institute in 2007 which found a significant association and influence between employee engagement and innovation. Based on survey findings from approximately 1,500 managers throughout the UK, where respondents identified the prevailing management style of their organisation as innovative, 92 per cent of managers felt proud to work there.
As Professor Julian Birkinshaw of the London Business School told us: “employee engagement is the sine qua non of innovation. In my experience you can have engaged employees who invest their time in multiple directions (such as servicing clients, creating quality products) but you cannot foster true innovation without engaged employees.”
(These extracts are from the recently published government commissioned report by David MacLeod entitled ‘Engaging For Success: Enhancing Performance Through Employee Engagement’.)
Friday, November 20, 2009
The correlation between engagement and employee turnover
By David MacLeod
Engaged employees are 87 per cent less likely to leave the organisation than the disengaged. The cost of high turnover among disengaged employees is significant; some estimates put the cost of replacing each employee at equal to annual salary.
The Corporate Leadership Council report that highly engaged organisations have the potential to reduce staff turnover by 87 per cent and improve performance by 20 per cent.
(These extracts are from the recently published government commissioned report by David MacLeod entitled ‘Engaging For Success: Enhancing Performance Through Employee Engagement’.)
Engaged employees are 87 per cent less likely to leave the organisation than the disengaged. The cost of high turnover among disengaged employees is significant; some estimates put the cost of replacing each employee at equal to annual salary.
The Corporate Leadership Council report that highly engaged organisations have the potential to reduce staff turnover by 87 per cent and improve performance by 20 per cent.
(These extracts are from the recently published government commissioned report by David MacLeod entitled ‘Engaging For Success: Enhancing Performance Through Employee Engagement’.)
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Engaging For Success: Enhancing Performance Through Employee Engagement
How to sell an engagement survey to senior managementThe following are extracts from the recently published government commissioned report by David MacLeod entitled ‘Engaging For Success: Enhancing Performance Through Employee Engagement’.
‘Business and organisations function best when they make their employees’ commitment, potential, creativity and capability central to their operation. Clearly, having enough cash, and a sensible strategy, are vital. But how people behave at work can make the crucial difference between business and operational success or failure.’
The correlation between engagement and performance
Gallup in 2006 examined 23,910 business units and compared top quartile and bottom quartile financial performance with engagement scores. They found that:
Those with engagement scores in the bottom quartile averaged 31 – 51 per cent more employee turnover, 51 per cent more inventory shrinkage and 62 per cent more accidents. Those with engagement scores in the top quartile averaged 12 per cent higher customer advocacy, 18 per cent higher productivity and 12 per cent higher profitability.
A second Gallup study of the same year of earnings per share (EPS) growth of 89 organisations found that the EPS growth rate of organisations with engagement scores in the top quartile was 2.6 times that of organisations with below-average engagement scores.
Tower Perrins-ISR carried out a global survey in 2006 which included data gathered from opinion surveys of over 664,000 employees from over 50 companies around the world, representing a range of industries and sizes. The survey compared the financial performance of organisations with a highly-engaged workforce to their peers with a less-engaged workforce, over a 12 month period.
Those companies with a highly engaged workforce improved operating income by 19.2 per cent over a period of 12 months, whilst those companies with low engagement scores saw operating income decline by 32.7 per cent over the same period.
Over a 12 month period, those companies with high engagement scores demonstrated a 13.7 per cent improvement in net income growth whilst those with low engagement saw net income growth decline by 3.8 per cent.
Most noticeable was the near 52 per cent gap in the performance improvement in operating income over the year between companies with highly-engaged employees versus companies whose employees had low engagement scores. Companies with high levels of employee engagement improved 19.2 per cent in operating income while companies with low levels of employee engagement declined 32.7 percent over the study period.
Standard Chartered Bank reported that in 2007 they found that branches with a statistically significant increase in levels of employee engagement (0.2 or more on a scale of five) had a 16 per cent higher profit margin growth than branches with decreased levels of employee engagement.
The Corporate Leadership Council reported that engaged organisations grew profits as much as three times faster than their competitors.
Hewitt reported that companies with a greater than 10 per cent profit growth had 39 per cent more engaged employees and 45 per cent fewer disengaged employees than those with less than 10 per cent growth.
IES in their 1999 study From People to Profits found a link between employee satisfaction, customer satisfaction and increases in sales,. based on a study of 65,000 employees and 25,000 customers from 100 stores, over two years. They concluded a one per cent increase in employee commitment (using a five point scale) can lead to a monthly increase of nine per cent in sales.
‘Business and organisations function best when they make their employees’ commitment, potential, creativity and capability central to their operation. Clearly, having enough cash, and a sensible strategy, are vital. But how people behave at work can make the crucial difference between business and operational success or failure.’
The correlation between engagement and performance
Gallup in 2006 examined 23,910 business units and compared top quartile and bottom quartile financial performance with engagement scores. They found that:
Those with engagement scores in the bottom quartile averaged 31 – 51 per cent more employee turnover, 51 per cent more inventory shrinkage and 62 per cent more accidents. Those with engagement scores in the top quartile averaged 12 per cent higher customer advocacy, 18 per cent higher productivity and 12 per cent higher profitability.
A second Gallup study of the same year of earnings per share (EPS) growth of 89 organisations found that the EPS growth rate of organisations with engagement scores in the top quartile was 2.6 times that of organisations with below-average engagement scores.
Tower Perrins-ISR carried out a global survey in 2006 which included data gathered from opinion surveys of over 664,000 employees from over 50 companies around the world, representing a range of industries and sizes. The survey compared the financial performance of organisations with a highly-engaged workforce to their peers with a less-engaged workforce, over a 12 month period.
Those companies with a highly engaged workforce improved operating income by 19.2 per cent over a period of 12 months, whilst those companies with low engagement scores saw operating income decline by 32.7 per cent over the same period.
Over a 12 month period, those companies with high engagement scores demonstrated a 13.7 per cent improvement in net income growth whilst those with low engagement saw net income growth decline by 3.8 per cent.
Most noticeable was the near 52 per cent gap in the performance improvement in operating income over the year between companies with highly-engaged employees versus companies whose employees had low engagement scores. Companies with high levels of employee engagement improved 19.2 per cent in operating income while companies with low levels of employee engagement declined 32.7 percent over the study period.
Standard Chartered Bank reported that in 2007 they found that branches with a statistically significant increase in levels of employee engagement (0.2 or more on a scale of five) had a 16 per cent higher profit margin growth than branches with decreased levels of employee engagement.
The Corporate Leadership Council reported that engaged organisations grew profits as much as three times faster than their competitors.
Hewitt reported that companies with a greater than 10 per cent profit growth had 39 per cent more engaged employees and 45 per cent fewer disengaged employees than those with less than 10 per cent growth.
IES in their 1999 study From People to Profits found a link between employee satisfaction, customer satisfaction and increases in sales,. based on a study of 65,000 employees and 25,000 customers from 100 stores, over two years. They concluded a one per cent increase in employee commitment (using a five point scale) can lead to a monthly increase of nine per cent in sales.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Increasing Employee Retention Through Employee Engagement
by Josh Greenberg
You’ve seen it happen many times. An organization that provides top wages and benefits loses a great employee to a competitor for no apparent reason. Of course, some employee turnover is to be expected, but if your company is truly engaging your employees, there is no good reason for the unexpected loss of quality staff members. Many companies already know that wages and benefits are important to employees, but compensation alone is not enough to keep the highly skilled, motivated and experienced workforce your business needs to excel.
Defining Employee Engagement
What is employee engagement exactly? AlphaMeasure defines employee engagement as the level of commitment and involvement an employee has towards their organization and its values.
The primary behaviors of engaged employees are speaking positively about the organization to coworkers, potential employees and customers, having a strong desire to be a member of the organization, and exerting extra effort to contribute to the organization’s success. Many smart organizations work to develop and nurture engagement. It is important to note, the employee engagement process does require a two-way relationship between employer and employee.
Why is Employment Engagement so important?
An organization’s capacity to manage employee engagement is closely related to its ability to achieve high performance levels and superior business results.
Engaged employees will stay with the company, be an advocate of the company and its products and services, and contribute to bottom line business success. Engaged employees also normally perform better and are more motivated. There is a significant link between employee engagement and profitability. Employee engagement is critical to any organization that seeks not only to retain valued employees, but also increase its level of performance.
Factors of Engagement
Many organizational factors influence employee engagement and retention such as:
A culture of respect where outstanding work is valued
Availability of constructive feedback and mentoring
Opportunity for advancement and professional development
Fair and appropriate reward, recognition and incentive systems
Availability of effective leadership
Clear job expectations
Adequate tools to complete work responsibilities
High levels of motivation
Many other factors exist that might apply to your particular business and the importance of these factors will also vary within your organization.
Engagement Essentials
How will you know to what degree your employees are engaged? The first step is to determine the current level of employee engagement. The best tool to determine this base line is a comprehensive employee satisfaction survey. A well administered satisfaction survey will let you know at what level of engagement your employees are operating. Customizable employee surveys will provide you with a starting point towards your efforts to optimize employee engagement.
The key to successful employee satisfaction surveys is to pay close attention to the feedback from your staff. This is the only way to identify their specific concerns. When leaders listen, employees respond by becoming more engaged. This results in increased productivity and employee retention. Engaged employees are much more likely to be satisfied in their positions, remain with the company, be promoted, and strive for higher levels of performance.
Listening to employee ideas, acting on employee contributions and actively involving employees in decision making are essential to employee engagement.
Taking Action to Improve Employee Engagement
Nothing is more discouraging to employees than to be asked for their feedback and see no movement toward resolution of their issues. Even the smallest actions taken to address concerns will let your staff know that their input is valued. Feeling valued will boost morale, motivate and encourage future input.
Taking action starts with listening to employee feedback. Then the data needs to be analyzed. Next, a definitive action plan will need to be put in place and finally, change will be implemented. It is important that employee engagement is not viewed as a one time action. Employee engagement should be a continuous process of measuring, analyzing, defining and implementing.
What is the Alternative to Employee Engagement?
Conditions that prevent employee engagement seldom alleviate themselves. They should be assessed and addressed as soon as possible. Left to multiply, negative employee satisfaction issues can result in:
Higher employee turnover - Employees leave, taking their reservoir of knowledge and experience to another workplace
Diminished performance - Competency of the workforce is reduced, at least short term, until new employees are trained
Lost training dollars - Time and money invested in training and development programs for departing workers is wasted
Lower morale - Remaining employees can be overburdened with new duties, in addition the unresolved issues that already prevent their full engagement
How Can You Attain Employee Engagement?
Listen to your employees and remember that this is a continuous process. The information your employees supply will provide direction. Insist upon increased engagement at the managerial level, and create and deploy a customized employee satisfaction survey from AlphaMeasure to assess your current level of employee engagement. Identify problem areas, make a plan and take action towards improvement.
You’ve seen it happen many times. An organization that provides top wages and benefits loses a great employee to a competitor for no apparent reason. Of course, some employee turnover is to be expected, but if your company is truly engaging your employees, there is no good reason for the unexpected loss of quality staff members. Many companies already know that wages and benefits are important to employees, but compensation alone is not enough to keep the highly skilled, motivated and experienced workforce your business needs to excel.
Defining Employee Engagement
What is employee engagement exactly? AlphaMeasure defines employee engagement as the level of commitment and involvement an employee has towards their organization and its values.
The primary behaviors of engaged employees are speaking positively about the organization to coworkers, potential employees and customers, having a strong desire to be a member of the organization, and exerting extra effort to contribute to the organization’s success. Many smart organizations work to develop and nurture engagement. It is important to note, the employee engagement process does require a two-way relationship between employer and employee.
Why is Employment Engagement so important?
An organization’s capacity to manage employee engagement is closely related to its ability to achieve high performance levels and superior business results.
Engaged employees will stay with the company, be an advocate of the company and its products and services, and contribute to bottom line business success. Engaged employees also normally perform better and are more motivated. There is a significant link between employee engagement and profitability. Employee engagement is critical to any organization that seeks not only to retain valued employees, but also increase its level of performance.
Factors of Engagement
Many organizational factors influence employee engagement and retention such as:
A culture of respect where outstanding work is valued
Availability of constructive feedback and mentoring
Opportunity for advancement and professional development
Fair and appropriate reward, recognition and incentive systems
Availability of effective leadership
Clear job expectations
Adequate tools to complete work responsibilities
High levels of motivation
Many other factors exist that might apply to your particular business and the importance of these factors will also vary within your organization.
Engagement Essentials
How will you know to what degree your employees are engaged? The first step is to determine the current level of employee engagement. The best tool to determine this base line is a comprehensive employee satisfaction survey. A well administered satisfaction survey will let you know at what level of engagement your employees are operating. Customizable employee surveys will provide you with a starting point towards your efforts to optimize employee engagement.
The key to successful employee satisfaction surveys is to pay close attention to the feedback from your staff. This is the only way to identify their specific concerns. When leaders listen, employees respond by becoming more engaged. This results in increased productivity and employee retention. Engaged employees are much more likely to be satisfied in their positions, remain with the company, be promoted, and strive for higher levels of performance.
Listening to employee ideas, acting on employee contributions and actively involving employees in decision making are essential to employee engagement.
Taking Action to Improve Employee Engagement
Nothing is more discouraging to employees than to be asked for their feedback and see no movement toward resolution of their issues. Even the smallest actions taken to address concerns will let your staff know that their input is valued. Feeling valued will boost morale, motivate and encourage future input.
Taking action starts with listening to employee feedback. Then the data needs to be analyzed. Next, a definitive action plan will need to be put in place and finally, change will be implemented. It is important that employee engagement is not viewed as a one time action. Employee engagement should be a continuous process of measuring, analyzing, defining and implementing.
What is the Alternative to Employee Engagement?
Conditions that prevent employee engagement seldom alleviate themselves. They should be assessed and addressed as soon as possible. Left to multiply, negative employee satisfaction issues can result in:
Higher employee turnover - Employees leave, taking their reservoir of knowledge and experience to another workplace
Diminished performance - Competency of the workforce is reduced, at least short term, until new employees are trained
Lost training dollars - Time and money invested in training and development programs for departing workers is wasted
Lower morale - Remaining employees can be overburdened with new duties, in addition the unresolved issues that already prevent their full engagement
How Can You Attain Employee Engagement?
Listen to your employees and remember that this is a continuous process. The information your employees supply will provide direction. Insist upon increased engagement at the managerial level, and create and deploy a customized employee satisfaction survey from AlphaMeasure to assess your current level of employee engagement. Identify problem areas, make a plan and take action towards improvement.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Employees say recession not reducing overall job satisfaction
Employees say recession not reducing overall job satisfaction, annual SHRM survey finds -
The majority of employees (58 percent) report the current economy has no effect on their overall job satisfaction, according to the 2009 Job Satisfaction Survey, released on June 28 by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) at its 61st Annual Conference and Exposition in New Orleans.
Employees at organizations "somewhat affected" by the recession are more likely to be satisfied than employees at organizations that have been "greatly impacted" by the economy. More than 40 percent of those surveyed said they are "very satisfied" with their jobs and 45 percent are "somewhat satisfied."
"Although employees say the weak economy has no negative impact on overall job satisfaction, the recession is the reason why job security is the top-ranked factor to workplace satisfaction among HR professionals and employees in 2009," said SHRM president and CEO Laurence G. O’Neil. "Job security is the number one aspect of job satisfaction this year, topping benefits, compensation and feeling safe at work."
Participating employees ranked the following as being the top-five most important aspects of job satisfaction:
Job security (63 percent);
Benefits (60 percent);
Compensation pay (57 percent);
Opportunities to use skills and abilities (55 percent); and
Feeling safe at work (54 percent).
"When it comes to benefits, employees rank healthcare, paid leave and retirement, in that order, as being most important," said Steve Williams, Ph.D., SPHR, director of research at SHRM. According to the survey, employees view healthcare and medical benefits (64 percent) as more valuable than paid time off (58 percent), defined contribution plans (41 percent), defined benefit pension plans (39 percent) and family-friendly benefits (29 percent).
Participating HR professionals created a similar list of the top-five most important aspects of job satisfaction:
Job security/relationship with supervisor (72 percent);
Benefits (69 percent);
Communication between employees and senior management (66 percent);
Opportunities to use skills and abilities (62 percent); and
Management recognition of employee job performance (61 percent).
"This year’s survey tells us that in spite of the economy, people still appreciate and enjoy their jobs," said Williams. "Even though much has been made of the number of employees expected to get out when the recession turns around, we believe the opposite is true. In fact, three out of four employees say they will stay put. This is a huge credit to HR and to managers within organizations."
The annual survey also revealed:
Employees with longer tenure at organizations rank benefits, such as defined contribution plans and defined benefit pension plans, as most important to job satisfaction than do employees with shorter tenure.
More females report paid time off, the relationship with the immediate boss and coworkers and flexibility to balance work and life issues as being important to job satisfaction than do men.
Employees 35 years old and younger said family-friendly benefits were more important than did employees age 56 and older.
Career development and networking opportunities, paid training and reimbursement programs, meaningfulness of job and an organization’s commitment to a green workplace were among the job satisfaction aspects that were least in importance to employees between 2008 and 2009.
Source: Society for Human Resource Management; www.shrm.org.
The majority of employees (58 percent) report the current economy has no effect on their overall job satisfaction, according to the 2009 Job Satisfaction Survey, released on June 28 by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) at its 61st Annual Conference and Exposition in New Orleans.
Employees at organizations "somewhat affected" by the recession are more likely to be satisfied than employees at organizations that have been "greatly impacted" by the economy. More than 40 percent of those surveyed said they are "very satisfied" with their jobs and 45 percent are "somewhat satisfied."
"Although employees say the weak economy has no negative impact on overall job satisfaction, the recession is the reason why job security is the top-ranked factor to workplace satisfaction among HR professionals and employees in 2009," said SHRM president and CEO Laurence G. O’Neil. "Job security is the number one aspect of job satisfaction this year, topping benefits, compensation and feeling safe at work."
Participating employees ranked the following as being the top-five most important aspects of job satisfaction:
Job security (63 percent);
Benefits (60 percent);
Compensation pay (57 percent);
Opportunities to use skills and abilities (55 percent); and
Feeling safe at work (54 percent).
"When it comes to benefits, employees rank healthcare, paid leave and retirement, in that order, as being most important," said Steve Williams, Ph.D., SPHR, director of research at SHRM. According to the survey, employees view healthcare and medical benefits (64 percent) as more valuable than paid time off (58 percent), defined contribution plans (41 percent), defined benefit pension plans (39 percent) and family-friendly benefits (29 percent).
Participating HR professionals created a similar list of the top-five most important aspects of job satisfaction:
Job security/relationship with supervisor (72 percent);
Benefits (69 percent);
Communication between employees and senior management (66 percent);
Opportunities to use skills and abilities (62 percent); and
Management recognition of employee job performance (61 percent).
"This year’s survey tells us that in spite of the economy, people still appreciate and enjoy their jobs," said Williams. "Even though much has been made of the number of employees expected to get out when the recession turns around, we believe the opposite is true. In fact, three out of four employees say they will stay put. This is a huge credit to HR and to managers within organizations."
The annual survey also revealed:
Employees with longer tenure at organizations rank benefits, such as defined contribution plans and defined benefit pension plans, as most important to job satisfaction than do employees with shorter tenure.
More females report paid time off, the relationship with the immediate boss and coworkers and flexibility to balance work and life issues as being important to job satisfaction than do men.
Employees 35 years old and younger said family-friendly benefits were more important than did employees age 56 and older.
Career development and networking opportunities, paid training and reimbursement programs, meaningfulness of job and an organization’s commitment to a green workplace were among the job satisfaction aspects that were least in importance to employees between 2008 and 2009.
Source: Society for Human Resource Management; www.shrm.org.
Friday, November 13, 2009
The top 5 myths about motivating employees
While motivating employees is a key factor in an economic recovery, many companies are failing to keep their workers fully engaged in their jobs because they share some common myths and beliefs. Employers must re-examine their beliefs about employee engagement if they hope to accelerate their business recovery and retain their top talent, explains author Suzanne Bates.
The Top 5 Myths About Motivating Employees are at work even during an economic boom. However, in a serious recession, everything changes, and employers' misperceptions can be damaging. "If employers don't re-examine their human resource practices and beliefs about motivation," said Bates, "they risk damaging morale, losing top talent, and lengthening their recovery time."
Top 5 myths about motivating employees
Myth #1: Money is the number one way to motivate employees. "Salaries and bonuses have been the staple of motivation. Most companies relied primarily, even completely, on monetary rewards," said Bates. "Money is only one of many factors in motivation. Yet companies have become lazy about motivating people instead of giving them what they really crave, which is recognition, praise, and the opportunity to learn."
Myth #2: If you want to motivate people, don’t let them in on the bad news. "This is a particularly damaging myth. Bad news always gets out to employees. They hate it when you hide bad news; they consider themselves partners in the company, and they long for a chance to contribute and make a difference, especially in tough times," said Bates. "The surest way to motivate people is to empower them even with terrible news, so they can come to terms with reality, think their way through the crisis, and contribute to creative solutions going forward."
Myth #3: Most employees know what motivates them. "Many people are searching for a larger purpose, and they are not finding it in their work," said Bates. "In challenging times, employers can become a powerful source of motivation and pride among talented people. In a downturn, leaders must talk to employees and help them discover who they are and what motivates them. Spend time with them; ask them why they enjoy the work, what they enjoy most, how they want to contribute, and where they see themselves in the future."
Myth #4: You simply cannot motivate everyone. "This was true in boom times, when organizations were bloated and some people you hired were marginal. Those days are over," said Bates. "Now that companies have downsized and are arguably leaner and meaner with the best talent, this is a damaging assumption. It is a leader’s responsibility to motivate employees. It’s time to stop blaming employees, and start looking to leaders to ignite the spark."
Myth #5: People are just grateful to have a job, and this attitude will survive the downturn. "Top talent will always have a place to go, and while they may have had less mobility during the recession, your competitors are already looking around to see who is unhappy and ready to leave," said Bates. "Employers who keep believing their people are just grateful to have a job will be blindsided when their top talent walks out the door because they don’t have leaders who are engaging them, praising them, recognizing them, and giving them opportunities to grow."
Source: Suzanne Bates, president and CEO of Bates Communications, is the author of "Motivate Like a CEO: Communicate Your Strategic Vision and Inspire People to Act!" (McGraw-Hill 2009); (www.bates-communications.com).
The Top 5 Myths About Motivating Employees are at work even during an economic boom. However, in a serious recession, everything changes, and employers' misperceptions can be damaging. "If employers don't re-examine their human resource practices and beliefs about motivation," said Bates, "they risk damaging morale, losing top talent, and lengthening their recovery time."
Top 5 myths about motivating employees
Myth #1: Money is the number one way to motivate employees. "Salaries and bonuses have been the staple of motivation. Most companies relied primarily, even completely, on monetary rewards," said Bates. "Money is only one of many factors in motivation. Yet companies have become lazy about motivating people instead of giving them what they really crave, which is recognition, praise, and the opportunity to learn."
Myth #2: If you want to motivate people, don’t let them in on the bad news. "This is a particularly damaging myth. Bad news always gets out to employees. They hate it when you hide bad news; they consider themselves partners in the company, and they long for a chance to contribute and make a difference, especially in tough times," said Bates. "The surest way to motivate people is to empower them even with terrible news, so they can come to terms with reality, think their way through the crisis, and contribute to creative solutions going forward."
Myth #3: Most employees know what motivates them. "Many people are searching for a larger purpose, and they are not finding it in their work," said Bates. "In challenging times, employers can become a powerful source of motivation and pride among talented people. In a downturn, leaders must talk to employees and help them discover who they are and what motivates them. Spend time with them; ask them why they enjoy the work, what they enjoy most, how they want to contribute, and where they see themselves in the future."
Myth #4: You simply cannot motivate everyone. "This was true in boom times, when organizations were bloated and some people you hired were marginal. Those days are over," said Bates. "Now that companies have downsized and are arguably leaner and meaner with the best talent, this is a damaging assumption. It is a leader’s responsibility to motivate employees. It’s time to stop blaming employees, and start looking to leaders to ignite the spark."
Myth #5: People are just grateful to have a job, and this attitude will survive the downturn. "Top talent will always have a place to go, and while they may have had less mobility during the recession, your competitors are already looking around to see who is unhappy and ready to leave," said Bates. "Employers who keep believing their people are just grateful to have a job will be blindsided when their top talent walks out the door because they don’t have leaders who are engaging them, praising them, recognizing them, and giving them opportunities to grow."
Source: Suzanne Bates, president and CEO of Bates Communications, is the author of "Motivate Like a CEO: Communicate Your Strategic Vision and Inspire People to Act!" (McGraw-Hill 2009); (www.bates-communications.com).
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Why Employee Perspective Matters
With no context and with no other perspective, we have no idea what to make of the anything. We don't know if something is a masterpiece or something I just painted. It may look simple and unimpressive.
If you saw an isolated piece, say a two inch square of what looked like a bunch of brown and tan blotches in an art gallery, how much would you pay for it? Oh sure, if it matches your couch and rug, the value increases a little bit. But there is nothing special about it.
Without the context of the rest of the picture, you'll never know if it is actually part of something special or just a bunch of blotches.
If you think of business as a work of art, your employees are the artists. And while each one may be working on something simple and incomplete, the beauty of your business comes out when all of those pieces fit together.
Of course, the amazing part is how knowing the bigger picture makes all the difference. Say that unidentifiable piece was from the famous Mona Lisa. You would look at it and much more you understand its place in this masterpiece.
If your employee was working on that part of your masterpiece, they now know the pieces they have to blend and work with. They have to make sure the transition between the sky and her hairline is smooth and in sync with the rest. That the part in her hair transitions nicely into her face.
You could have a masterpiece and no one at your company would ever know if they didn't have that perspective.
Not only that, they would never have the ability to see what they are doing right or wrong so they lose a lot of natural feedback.
So now how important is perspective in context as it relates to employees?
If you saw an isolated piece, say a two inch square of what looked like a bunch of brown and tan blotches in an art gallery, how much would you pay for it? Oh sure, if it matches your couch and rug, the value increases a little bit. But there is nothing special about it.
Without the context of the rest of the picture, you'll never know if it is actually part of something special or just a bunch of blotches.
If you think of business as a work of art, your employees are the artists. And while each one may be working on something simple and incomplete, the beauty of your business comes out when all of those pieces fit together.
Of course, the amazing part is how knowing the bigger picture makes all the difference. Say that unidentifiable piece was from the famous Mona Lisa. You would look at it and much more you understand its place in this masterpiece.
If your employee was working on that part of your masterpiece, they now know the pieces they have to blend and work with. They have to make sure the transition between the sky and her hairline is smooth and in sync with the rest. That the part in her hair transitions nicely into her face.
You could have a masterpiece and no one at your company would ever know if they didn't have that perspective.
Not only that, they would never have the ability to see what they are doing right or wrong so they lose a lot of natural feedback.
So now how important is perspective in context as it relates to employees?
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Happy employees and their link to organizational success.
Employee engagement and empowerment represent powerful ways to enhance productivity and profitability. Valued employees are happy employees; and happy employees are what drive business success.
There are several steps that will help to empower and engage your employees. The top five are covered here.
1. Perception of job importance - If your employees feel that their jobs are important, they will feel valued, and you will have employee loyalty.
2. Clear expectations - Clear expectations, basic materials, and equipment must be provided or negative emotions such as boredom may result. Employees will become more focused on getting through the day than about how to help the organization succeed.
3. Regular feedback from superiors - Feedback is the key to giving employees a sense of where they're going. Many companies are lacking in this department. This feedback has to be positive as well as constructively critical.
4. Use a suggestion box - Allowing your employees a say in what is being done in the work place will strengthen their pride in their job and let them feel as if they have an affect on the company's operations.
5. Effective communications - Employees want to know what is happening in the workplace. Accepting that employees wish to feel involved in what they are doing is the first step in creating a more productive work environment.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Feedback lessons from American Idol
Feedback lessons from American Idol
Posted by Heather Stagl
February 3, 2009
Like millions of others, I enjoy American Idol, but usually only after they get to Hollywood, when they are done filtering through the bad singers. Last week, although they were still in the preliminary phase, I thought I would watch with an eye for feedback tips.
Lesson #1: Short of honest feedback, people assume the best of their own performance.
A friend tried out for American Idol a couple of years ago, and shared her experience. Evidently, there are several rounds of auditions with other judges before the final round with Randy, Paula, and Simon (and now Kara). Which means that that the judges in previous rounds passed all the bad singers and crazy personalities by allowing them to think they were good enough to go on to the next round. If you think about it, this is not much different from every day at work. Lack of feedback – or lack of honest feedback – allows individuals to go on thinking that their bad behavior is acceptable and effective.
Lesson #2: Request permission to provide feedback before giving it.
The people who try out for American Idol expect to be given feedback, even though they may not agree with it. Otherwise, they stay home. If they sign up for it, they have to listen, or at least stand there while you say it.
Lesson #3: Modify your approach based on the performance and their attitude.
Watching Simon Cowell give feedback, I noticed he has four different approaches.
Beaming praise. When someone deserves it, he doesn’t hold back the good feedback.
Genuine critique. Contestants that have talent but need to work at improving receive kind words and specific suggestions.
Confirmation of doubt. When the contestant is not good but also not in denial, Simon says something like, “That wasn’t good enough, now was it?” He lets them down somewhat easily by simply confirming what they already know.
Direct and rude. For contestants who believe they are destined to be stars but who are truly untalented, Simon provides the response he has become famous for: direct, rude, and insulting. He tries to knock these contestants down a notch to bring them into reality, and if that doesn’t work, at least it makes for good television.
I’m not a proponent of being rude and insulting, but being direct does have its place. In my experience, the immediate response to direct, honest feedback is usually defensive and denial, but the recipient usually does listen in the end.
Posted by Heather Stagl
February 3, 2009
Like millions of others, I enjoy American Idol, but usually only after they get to Hollywood, when they are done filtering through the bad singers. Last week, although they were still in the preliminary phase, I thought I would watch with an eye for feedback tips.
Lesson #1: Short of honest feedback, people assume the best of their own performance.
A friend tried out for American Idol a couple of years ago, and shared her experience. Evidently, there are several rounds of auditions with other judges before the final round with Randy, Paula, and Simon (and now Kara). Which means that that the judges in previous rounds passed all the bad singers and crazy personalities by allowing them to think they were good enough to go on to the next round. If you think about it, this is not much different from every day at work. Lack of feedback – or lack of honest feedback – allows individuals to go on thinking that their bad behavior is acceptable and effective.
Lesson #2: Request permission to provide feedback before giving it.
The people who try out for American Idol expect to be given feedback, even though they may not agree with it. Otherwise, they stay home. If they sign up for it, they have to listen, or at least stand there while you say it.
Lesson #3: Modify your approach based on the performance and their attitude.
Watching Simon Cowell give feedback, I noticed he has four different approaches.
Beaming praise. When someone deserves it, he doesn’t hold back the good feedback.
Genuine critique. Contestants that have talent but need to work at improving receive kind words and specific suggestions.
Confirmation of doubt. When the contestant is not good but also not in denial, Simon says something like, “That wasn’t good enough, now was it?” He lets them down somewhat easily by simply confirming what they already know.
Direct and rude. For contestants who believe they are destined to be stars but who are truly untalented, Simon provides the response he has become famous for: direct, rude, and insulting. He tries to knock these contestants down a notch to bring them into reality, and if that doesn’t work, at least it makes for good television.
I’m not a proponent of being rude and insulting, but being direct does have its place. In my experience, the immediate response to direct, honest feedback is usually defensive and denial, but the recipient usually does listen in the end.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Four Reasons NOT to Conduct an Employee Survey
Four Reasons NOT to Conduct an Employee Survey
by by Heather Stagl of Enclaria
September 22, 2009
Employee surveys are useful tools for understanding the beliefs, attitudes and opinions of an organization as a whole. Surveys are commonly used in pursuit of change to discover and understand organizational culture, resistance, morale, and a host of other characteristics that can shine the light on opportunities for improvement.
However, not all surveys will improve the situation. The following are four warning signs that conducting a survey may do more harm than good.
1. The leaders don’t really want to know what people think.
The people who hold the top spots in an organization are usually out of the feedback loop. As they move up the ladder, they are increasingly unaware of the pulse of the organization. When the intent to conduct an employee survey is proposed, leaders who understand this phenomenon will jump at the chance to collect information that they have gradually been phased out of. These leaders will want more details about what will be asked, and might even propose other questions that they would like to ask.
On the flip side of the coin are leaders who think they already know, or worse, don’t really care what the employees think or how they feel. If you propose an employee survey and receive a resounding, “Sure, go ahead” without any curiosity or concerns, beware. They probably don’t really want to know what people think.
2. The leaders won’t believe the results.
Sometimes leaders will dismiss the results of the survey, even if it seems they wanted to know. I once conducted an employee satisfaction survey that I created in-house due to lack of funds for the project. Once I presented the results, the leaders wanted benchmarks to compare against to see if the results were “normal.” Of course, having created the survey in-house, there was no other data to compare them against.
Before conducting a survey, watch for signs that the leaders commonly deflect accountability by picking apart the validity of numbers in other settings. One way to combat this scenario ahead of time is to discuss the output that will be generated from the survey. Discuss hypothetical results with the leadership team to determine up front what else they will want to know, so you can build it into your analysis.
3. The leaders won’t do anything about it.
Even leaders who want to know and believe the results still may not do anything about it. If employees give their opinion and then nothing is done, the integrity of the leaders and you as the surveyor drops, and future surveys will not be taken as seriously.
When discussing hypothetical results, gauge the interest of leaders in taking action. For example, if the survey says that people don’t know the direction the company is going, are the leaders willing to share strategic information? If the answer is no, then don’t bother asking.
To combat the first three reasons not to conduct an employee survey, make sure leaders know the questions you are asking and what you are actually measuring with the questions. Discuss ahead of time what the implications and actions might be based on hypothetical responses you think they might have trouble absorbing.
4. You don’t want to say what you already know
The fourth reason not to conduct an employee survey, instead of being directed at the leadership team, is directed at the surveyor. Are you conducting the survey because you don’t know the answers, or are you conducting the survey because you don’t want to say what you already know? Is fear getting in the way of you speaking up and sharing the problems you see in the organization? Is the survey actually a cop-out?
If any of that rings true, here’s an idea for you: Include your point of view in the proposal for the survey. State your hypothesis – what you believe to be true – and say you would like to conduct a survey to test it. Share the implications and the action plan for improving the situation if you are right. Then offer the option to skip the survey if they agree – they just might. If they don’t agree with your hypothesis, then you will still conduct the survey. Not only will you get more involvement from people who disagree with you, it will also be more scientific and objective than if you were just using the to communicate for you.
Yes, surveys can be very useful tools to help direct a change initiative. That is, of course, if the leaders want to know what employees think, will believe the results, and will do something with the opportunities that are revealed.
by by Heather Stagl of Enclaria
September 22, 2009
Employee surveys are useful tools for understanding the beliefs, attitudes and opinions of an organization as a whole. Surveys are commonly used in pursuit of change to discover and understand organizational culture, resistance, morale, and a host of other characteristics that can shine the light on opportunities for improvement.
However, not all surveys will improve the situation. The following are four warning signs that conducting a survey may do more harm than good.
1. The leaders don’t really want to know what people think.
The people who hold the top spots in an organization are usually out of the feedback loop. As they move up the ladder, they are increasingly unaware of the pulse of the organization. When the intent to conduct an employee survey is proposed, leaders who understand this phenomenon will jump at the chance to collect information that they have gradually been phased out of. These leaders will want more details about what will be asked, and might even propose other questions that they would like to ask.
On the flip side of the coin are leaders who think they already know, or worse, don’t really care what the employees think or how they feel. If you propose an employee survey and receive a resounding, “Sure, go ahead” without any curiosity or concerns, beware. They probably don’t really want to know what people think.
2. The leaders won’t believe the results.
Sometimes leaders will dismiss the results of the survey, even if it seems they wanted to know. I once conducted an employee satisfaction survey that I created in-house due to lack of funds for the project. Once I presented the results, the leaders wanted benchmarks to compare against to see if the results were “normal.” Of course, having created the survey in-house, there was no other data to compare them against.
Before conducting a survey, watch for signs that the leaders commonly deflect accountability by picking apart the validity of numbers in other settings. One way to combat this scenario ahead of time is to discuss the output that will be generated from the survey. Discuss hypothetical results with the leadership team to determine up front what else they will want to know, so you can build it into your analysis.
3. The leaders won’t do anything about it.
Even leaders who want to know and believe the results still may not do anything about it. If employees give their opinion and then nothing is done, the integrity of the leaders and you as the surveyor drops, and future surveys will not be taken as seriously.
When discussing hypothetical results, gauge the interest of leaders in taking action. For example, if the survey says that people don’t know the direction the company is going, are the leaders willing to share strategic information? If the answer is no, then don’t bother asking.
To combat the first three reasons not to conduct an employee survey, make sure leaders know the questions you are asking and what you are actually measuring with the questions. Discuss ahead of time what the implications and actions might be based on hypothetical responses you think they might have trouble absorbing.
4. You don’t want to say what you already know
The fourth reason not to conduct an employee survey, instead of being directed at the leadership team, is directed at the surveyor. Are you conducting the survey because you don’t know the answers, or are you conducting the survey because you don’t want to say what you already know? Is fear getting in the way of you speaking up and sharing the problems you see in the organization? Is the survey actually a cop-out?
If any of that rings true, here’s an idea for you: Include your point of view in the proposal for the survey. State your hypothesis – what you believe to be true – and say you would like to conduct a survey to test it. Share the implications and the action plan for improving the situation if you are right. Then offer the option to skip the survey if they agree – they just might. If they don’t agree with your hypothesis, then you will still conduct the survey. Not only will you get more involvement from people who disagree with you, it will also be more scientific and objective than if you were just using the to communicate for you.
Yes, surveys can be very useful tools to help direct a change initiative. That is, of course, if the leaders want to know what employees think, will believe the results, and will do something with the opportunities that are revealed.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Study reveals critical disparities between employer perceptions and employee turnover intentions
Disparities found in a Deloitte research report suggest many companies should assess the turnover intentions of their key employees and revise the retention tactics they employ to keep top talent. The report, Keeping Your Team Intact: A Special Report on Talent Retention, reveals a number of critical differences between what employees reported they want and what surveyed executives think employees want. This special report compares the results of an August 2009 survey of employees at large enterprises around the world with a May 2009 survey of international corporate leaders.
The May 2009 survey revealed that top executives and talent managers surveyed are already charging ahead with new workforce plans, identifying potential retention barriers and adopting new strategies to keep their core workforces together. The latest report's key findings, however, suggest a "resume tsunami" may threaten unprepared companies as key employees who held on to their jobs in tough times may be seeking out better opportunities when economic fears recede.
Based on a global survey of 368 employees at large organizations (annual revenues of more than $500 million), key findings and the related conclusions from the latest research include:
Companies may struggle to keep their teams intact as they risk losing many of their most valued employees when the global economy recovers. Nearly half (49 percent) of employees surveyed in August are either looking for a new job or plan to do so after the recession ends, and 30 percent are already actively seeking new employers. Generation X is least likely to stay with their current employer (37 percent) as compared to Generation Y (44 percent) and Baby Boomers (50 percent).
A "tale of two mindsets" exists between employee desires and employer priorities. While the August survey reports Generation X participants have the highest turnover intentions, just 9 percent of corporate leaders surveyed in May said they expected voluntary turnover intentions to increase significantly among Generation X in the 12 months following the recession. And, while corporate leaders surveyed in May ranked "excessive workload" second among barriers to retaining employees, surveyed employees in August ranked it tenth overall; in fact, no demographic group ranked it higher than ninth. "Lack of job security" far outranked other factors that might cause surveyed employees to shift jobs. While surveyed employees ranked "lack of trust in leadership" sixth at 20 percent when asked what factors could induce them to leave their jobs after the recession ends, surveyed corporate leaders rated "lack of trust in leadership" 10th at only 12 percent.
Surveyed corporate leaders do not appear to understand the non-financial priorities of their employees. When asked to rank their top three retention tactics, in every instance, surveyed employees of all four generational groups chose different non-financial incentives than surveyed corporate leaders.
Corporate leaders may be misreading the priorities among different generations, leading organizations to offer the wrong incentives to employees. Surveyed corporate leaders and surveyed Generation X employees ranked "additional bonuses or financial incentives" as the most effective retention tactic. However, by a range of 48 percent to 37 percent, surveyed Generation X employees gave this tactic higher priority than surveyed corporate leaders. Forty percent of surveyed Baby Boomers chose "additional bonuses or financial incentives," whereas only 30 percent of surveyed corporate leaders made the same choice.
"Our research confirms to us the tale of two mindsets when it comes to employer perceptions and employee turnover intentions in today's economy," said Jeff Schwartz, principal, Deloitte Consulting LLP. "We believe leaders can minimize the disparity by first understanding what their employees really want and then realigning their retention strategies and tactics to match employee priorities. Those that succeed will be more likely to retain their high-potential employees and hit the ground running as the economy recovers."
Source: Deloitte Consulting, LLP; www.deloitte.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
