2
Nov

Fortune Magazine had released this year’s edition of their “Best Places to Work” rankings. This always proves fruitful to read, as it is packed with examples of how companies are successfully building productive corporate cultures through employee engagement.

One big reminder that we always see in this list is that the most sustainable approach to increasing employee engagement must start with creating a healthy company culture, and protecting that culture from the inevitable competing demands of day-to-day corporate life.

Let’s use a well-known example of employee engagement from Google, who once again earned the #1 ranking, to examine what we mean about “protection.”

One of Google’s most famous employee ‘perks’ is their commitment to encouraging new ideas from every employee, not just those in a special group assigned to innovation. To facilitate this, Google allows employees to spend 20 percent of their time working on their own projects, rather than those assigned to them. (See this article from 2011 that still rings true.)

Of course, you have to look under the hood: If that 20% is measured in total time, including from 5 pm to midnight, the commitment loses some of its luster. That is, if you work 8 hours and 2 can be dedicated to your own initiatives, it works. If you must fulfill 8 hours on company business, and then are “free” to dedicate all your overtime to your own projects, then the commitment is a sham. By all reports that is not the case at Google, although culturally people there certainly don’t limit themselves to clock-punching 8-hour days!

Senior Management Must Protect This Mindset.

Google has established a cultural method for encouraging new ideas. The company’s task then becomes protecting that mindset from managers who try to capture some of the 20% back for their priorities. That’s a natural managerial tendency that will triumph unless actively monitored and controlled by senior management! Managers at all levels must internalize and protect the 20% allowance, even when it means less time is spent on the projects they must complete.

Responsibility and commitment go both ways

Conversely, management has the right to (and must!) track the productivity of the 20% of time each employee dedicates to their own projects. A manager’s oversight does not stop where the 80% ends. The 20% time is also their responsibility. Managers must engage their employees and stay involved with all projects, and employees must be able to justify the time they spend on their own ideas. Regular check-ins must be part of the manager’s week:

  • What projects do you have going?
  • How are they progressing?
  • What resources might you require to overcome roadblocks?
  • With whom could you profitably collaborate on this?
  • Is the project ready to mainstream? What needs to happen to make that possible?
  • You dropped this idea: Why? What did you learn?

The 20% is not free time! It is an investment Google is making in future productivity and profitability, and must consistently pay off to be sustained. Employees must honor that commitment by working hard to make the best use of this opportunity!

Google makes this work by creating a culture that encourages employees to propose their own ideas and protects that privilege against competing day-to-day managerial priorities.

Does your company protect their engagement and innovation initiatives from completing corporate day-to-day needs? Share an example with us in the comments section.

 

 

25
Apr

We found a great thought-provoker about leadership styles and habits on InsideCRM.com. This checklist isn’t perfect, of course, even with over 100 factors to keep top-of-mind. So, we thought we could make it more useful with a few critiques. I am sure you can find other corrections to make as well based on your own leadership experiences.

Edits we would make (open the article to follow along as we go down the list):

Under Body Language, point 8 recommends that you “always smile.” This is way too broad. Smile only when appropriate, and when you can do it genuinely. False smiles at serious moments can strike the person with whom you are talking as condescending, even if you don’t mean to be.

Meeting deadlines: This whole section is missing the critical step of getting buy-in on your goals from team members. Everyone is more efficient if they own a piece of the decision-making process and agree on the goals you choose. You don’t have to govern by consensus, but you do have to invite participation and contribution to the planning and innovation processes.

Getting along with employees: Point 31 says “provide motivation”: Easy to say, hard to do if you can’t pay them a lot of money and let them run their own day. Ask for input from employees about how together you can build a sustainable engaged corporate culture.

  • It bugs us (a lot) that “listening” does not appear in this section.

Manage yourself: Most of these points (especially 33-36 and 40-43) support our philosophy of Pursuit of Truth. This is a critical leadership success factor for sustaining employee engagement and innovation.

Under Boosting Productivity, #45 needs work: Making meetings productive is more than just being “organized and prepared.” Meetings only have value if the agenda is short, forward-thinking and action-oriented. NO UPDATES. Deliver those by e-mail and require that they be read before the meeting starts. Continue reading

1
Feb

Throughout February, we are sharing multiple great sources of insight that we collected in 2011.

Here is a great post from the i4cp TrendWatcher that we find useful in discussing employee engagement initiatives with clients:

The link to the post.

The short version is that honesty and transparency in unsettled times pays off in spades for organizations. I4cp completed a survey that assessed relative openness of communication for the companies that participated in the survey. You will see in the summary chart below that high-performing organizations communicate better.

i4cp communication performance chart

Source: i4cp TrendWatcher Blog

To quote from the blog:

“It goes without saying that – especially in times of economic uncertainty – employees want honest, straightforward information from the top. Frequent, transparent communication such as updates about the financial status of the organization, M&A plans and the road ahead can help keep employees engaged rather than distracted by worrying about what is going on. Employee-generated rumors move faster and farther through an organization than any official communication could hope to, so preemptive messaging can help slow or stop misinformation altogether.”

Companies that fear a “stampede to the exits,” a drop in stock price or simply decreased productivity if they share anything but good news with their organization are on the wrong side of business history.

Indeed, if bad news is honestly shared, it is more likely to energize employees to help save the day, either by redoubling efforts, sharing fresh ideas they were afraid to share before, and other productivity enhancers.

“We are all in this together” is a trite phrase, but organizations that truly communicate with employees build trust and loyalty, and make that phrase ring true!

23
Sep

We have a bulging file of articles and research about employee engagement and it is always refreshing and energizing to check in with some of that data and thinking to keep us focused on what employee engagement is truly all about.

Here is a three-pager on Employee Engagement research done way back in 2004 in the UK that we think might be useful as a quick reminder of all the aspects of HR that underpin a good engagement strategy. Its conclusions support our own Foundations of Excellence philosophy, which focuses on adopting a three-pronged mindset within each employee that drives up engagement, which Bovo-Tighe clients will know well:

  • Unshakable Trust
  • The Pursuit of Truth
  • Commuication that Counts 

In the research summary, the authors presented a graphic that we recreate here:

Factors that drive employee engagement

These facets of employee life capture key areas to work on in creating an environment that encourages engagement. The report ranks these in order of importance based on their own research (based on the UK’s National Health Service) but does note that these factors will shift in importance from organization to organization (safety rises towards the top, for instance, in the energy business). We agree, and left out any reference to relative importance.

Note that “immediate management” can encapsulate how superiors lead and relate to subordinates, which gets a lot of emphasis from us. We also would comment that “job satisfaction” derives from a number of other facets on the list, but could also encompass details about particular job tasks and roles not captured elsewhere on the list. 

What do you think of this? Can it serve as a handy reminder that employee engagement is driven by a mix of factors that all need attention? What gaps do you see that need filling? Let us know in the comment section! We value your feedback on what we post here. It is only our informed opinion, after all! 

For more on our Foundations of Excellence philosophy, click here.

26
Apr

This McKinsey & Co. interview* with Duke University Professor Dan Ariely explores how subjectivity influences our decision-making process, and argues that totally rational behavior (defined as acting universally in one’s own best interest) can put the actor at a disadvantage. This is partly due to human characteristics such as social comparison, relative advantage, and our ability to weigh long-term versus short-term gains.

I especially like his insight into why senior managers often fail to understand the motivations of their staff, an issue we face (and have to face down) occasionally in our own work. This point cannot be made strongly enough: People have a huge range of personal motivations that drive their behavior, and the best managers understand and adapt to the multiple styles that exist in their own workplace. (Our principal Dave Tighe touched on it in a recent article about pay-for-performance, too.)

I am not sold on everything Prof. Ariely says here, notably his take on “revenge” as a positive irrational impulse in business (and the interviewer’s somewhat disturbing reaction!)

On the whole though, a thoughtfully different take on how the seemingly irrational makes sense in our human world.

*Registration may be required by the McKinsey site, but go ahead. They have good stuff, and it is free!

14
Apr

For the most part, Performance Management fails in its attempts to raise productivity, retain talent and rewards results. It becomes a burden on an organization and seems to demoralize or at least demotivate employees.

I read a quote recently in an article by David Wentworth on i4cp.com that hit the nail on the head:

“How did we get to a point where the term performance management instills fear and dread at its mere utterance? Employees tend to loathe the process…that does nothing to recognize their work, yet determines their pay for the next year. Managers see it as a huge time suck that culminates in a series of uncomfortable conversations and confrontations they would rather not endure.”

This is sad, because performance reviews and recognition programs should be a vehicle of employee engagement and generate a boost to productivity. Why does it instead induce fear and uncertainty?

Here are a few reasons why: Continue reading

23
Mar

Social comparison, one of the psychological factors that limit the effectiveness of compensation schemes as a performance reward,* apparently also has a salutary effect in improving employee productivity if it is revealed how individuals rank vis-à-vis their peers.

One of the professors we reviewed on the compensation topic, Prof. Francesca Gino, has taken an interesting tangent out of that research to explore how public delivery of performance feedback (as opposed to pay) can affect productivity. The conclusions are:

  • Frequent feedback raises productivity regardless of where an employee ranks relative to peers.
  • Fear of being the worst is a much stronger motivator to improve than a desire to be the best.

Let’s examine the second conclusion first, as that was more unpredictably interesting. The research measured productivity improvements among people who were given a clear understanding where their performance ranked compared to their fellow workers. This information generated a stronger response when the person found out he or she was near the bottom than if they ranked highly. Such people measurably improved their productivity. Clearly, a desire not to be the worst is a powerful motivator to improve performance! On the other hand, people who found they were not near the bottom did not change their behavior much or at all. This held whether they were middle of the pack or near the top rating. Apparently “being the best” is less motivation than “not being the worst” in a corporate setting!

Taking such a public approach (outside of sales) would have to be handled delicately, as you don’t want to have it drift into public humiliation, but some form of comparative ranking could prove useful.

Public or private, feedback is best when constant

Most critically for people managers, however, was the first conclusion: Frequency of feedback raised productivity across the board regardless of ranking. This is more support for throwing out the annual performance review as the BIG MOMENT when feedback is given. Make the annual review a short, sweet formality by giving feedback constantly, even every day if appropriate or possible. Indeed, one could argue giving steady constructive criticism should be the manager’s top responsibility, because increased employee productivity would naturally make it easier for the manager to hit his or her corporate goals.

For more detail, read the summary on HBS Working Knowledge.

*Our principal David Tighe reviewed that research on this topic a few months ago, describing why human frailties made it nearly impossible for corporations to reward effort using pay-for-performance schemes.

11
Mar

Great employee engagement is built many ways, but the best include smaller initiatives that help form the rock-solid foundation trust that is so critical to achieving full engagement.  

I get a little reminder of that every month from a local ice cream vendor called Arctic Express. I don’t do business with them, and cannot recommend their service either way. Somehow I got on their e-mail list, though, and get entertaining e-mails which constantly remind me that engagement doesn’t grow solely on grand initiatives like 360° Peer Reviews or leadership seminars. It grows from constant attention to work environment details that give regular confirmation that senior management does care. 

Little gestures count. If you provide a meaningful break to hard-working employees by making ice cream (or baby carrots for that matter) available to them, they notice. If you stick with it, they notice and appreciate it. If you build on a steady series of such signs of appreciation, they will start to believe you are serious about building trust and start to engage more energetically.

 

Consider the humble ice cream freezer sitting in the break room full of cheap but quality ice cream. Energized employees can act on their own desire to bond by throwing spontaneous ice cream socials. Think back to the AT&T Super Bowl ad that featured a group of employees throwing an impromptu Taco Party. If you can facilitate that kind of bonding exercise, you can add strength to the environment of full engagement you are trying to build. 

Ice cream in particular is one of the world’s great guilty pleasures, and you can make it affordable and available 24/7. If you worry about encouraging bad dietary habits, play that up too. Put a sign up right over the freezer with a tongue-in-cheek message like:  

“Easy there, Captain! How many of these have you had this week? Remember your New Year’s resolution! Always eat responsibly!”

-Management

Small gestures add up, as long as they happen consistently, and it is clear the ‘gesturers’ really mean it.

14
Feb

One of the great myths of compensation theory is that people work largely for money. Dangle a big enough carrot before employee noses, and productivity will skyrocket. Plus, varying the type of compensation by position should drive people to “self-sort” themselves into the right jobs for their skill sets. Hard-driving salespeople go for straight commission (pure pay-for-performance), while compliance officers opt for salary plus bonus.

It is clear anecdotally that pay-for-performance schemes underperform, and end up paying too much to generate the desired behavior. A recent working paper by three business school professors gathers a lot of the work done on this topic together, and make some broad conclusions that resonated with us here at Bovo-Tighe.

Our co-principal, David Tighe, even wrote up an article for it, posted now on ezinearticles.com

To summarize the authors’ conclusions, humans are not automatons. Psychological factors muck up the relationships between employees and their pay plans. Read the paper for the details, but here are much-simplified capsules on the three main psychological factors that affect pay plan success: Continue reading