|
Active engagement of employees in their jobs and work is mandatory
if U.S. business is to enjoy high productivity in our global economy.
However, Gallup research indicates that 70% of U.S. employees are
not engaged at work. Further, a recent Conference Board study showed
that 53% of American workers are unhappy in their jobs. Each of
these is a disturbing discovery and is a reason for U.S. corporate
concern. But, are they connected? Certainly unhappiness contributes
to disengagement, so we may be looking at a double whammy that could
dramatically affect how U.S. corporations fare in global productivity.
Clearly, disengagement and unhappiness can result in lower productivity,
which negatively affects earnings. However, lack of employee retention
also can result, with its many costs for replacement: recruiting
fees (often 30% and more of compensation), overtime pay to those
covering job duties, ramp-up time for replacements, as well as outplacement
fees and continued benefits if termination occurs.
Let's first consider conventional wisdom about how to create better
employee engagement. It suggests engagement can be realized by installing
various competency-based selection, appraisal and development programs,
as well as analysis of training needs. However, we're either using
the wrong instruments and programs, or we're using them improperly,
since Gallup research indicates they just make matters worse - the
longer employees stay, the more disengaged they become.
So, what can be done differently to create a working environment
that continues to keep employees happy and engaged, in turn producing
greater productivity?
First, let's look at several key indicators of employee engagement.
Most experts agree they include individual participation, open communication,
innovation, continuous improvement and empowerment. When these are
evident in a workforce, engagement nearly always exists, as does
productivity. However, based on the Gallup and Conference Board
findings, it would seem there is little evidence of them in American
business today.
So, how can we produce these indicators of engagement? To exist,
they require that four critical conditions be present in the workplace:
- proper placement and use of talent in specific jobs (to
include skills and knowledge training to further develop those talents),
- appropriate accountability and incentives,
- proper performance appraisal, and
- establishing the right mix of talent on teams.
Of course, depending on circumstances, there are other conditions
that help, but these seem to be the most important.
Talent as a Critical Condition for Engagement
First, let's look at talent and its critical role in employee happiness
and engagement.
Neuroscientists, such as the esteemed Drs. Harry Chugani of Wayne
State University and Joseph LeDoux of New York University, tell
us our talents don't change significantly after our mid-teens. This
means our interests, strengths, needs and stresses - including our
thought, feeling and behavior patterns - basically remain fixed
throughout our adult lives. It also means people don't change a
great deal after they're hired, despite all the training, coaching
and other development programs to which corporations may expose
them.
It follows, then, that we must be very careful about the people
we hire, by using job and function-based interviewing, as well as
pre-hiring investigative techniques. We also must identify those
talents (traits and characteristics) that define the very best employees
in every level and function, and then use appropriate selection
instruments that allow us to discover matching candidates. However,
based on the Gallup and Conference Board findings, U.S. business
is doing a poor job of competency-based hiring.
One of the best tools I've found to discover competencies/talents
(traits and characteristics) is the Birkman Method. It measures
fifty-five elements of human behavior, including interests, strengths,
needs and stresses. Most of these elements have 99 levels of intensity.
Therefore, the nuance of each element, as related to the other fifty-five,
creates a precise and accurate profile of an individual. When several
profiles are compared with each other, I'm able to discover the
preferred talents for an incumbent in a job. In terms of validity
and confidence levels, both field feedback and research indicate
the composite result, as related to competencies, is well into the
ninetieth percentile.
The Birkman Method measures individual degrees of interest in ten
areas: persuasiveness, artistic/visual, literary, auditory, social
service, outdoor, scientific, mechanical/manual, clerical and numerical.
Measurement of strengths, needs and stresses include eleven areas:
one-on-one relationships, social relationships, organizing, authority
relationships, idealism vs. realism, reflection vs. action, dealing
with challenge, dealing with emotions, dealing with change, independence
and making decisions. The Birkman Method provides no "right"
or "wrong" answers. It measures only "what is"
and allows the observer to decide whether "what is" matches
requirements.
I've used the Birkman Method for nearly fifteen years, in countless
selection and hiring situations, and have found it to be extremely
valid. Generally, I will administer the instrument to several employees
who are the best performers in a specific job. This way, I establish
a "success" profile (of a successful incumbent), against
which to measure candidates. Next, I administer the instrument to
all final candidates for that job. Management is shown the profile
comparisons, and these become part of the hiring decision. Also
included in the hiring decision are experience and education, as
well as the results of reference checks and interviews, etc.
And so, I've found competency tools to be of great value in matching
candidates to jobs, but doing so is a bit like fitting glass into
a new window. If the window measures 8 inches X 5 inches, but if
the tape measure used to buy the glass is in metrics, the glass
won't fit. In other words, the tool must match the task it's supposed
to measure. It seems, too often in the hiring process, this has
not occurred.
Of course, competency/talent measurement tools only establish ideal
profiles. Rarely, if ever, does any individual exactly match a competency
profile. The purpose of such a system is to ensure that each person
chosen for a given job comes as close as possible to the ideal profile.
This is not to suggest that people cannot improve themselves. Clearly,
they can learn new skills and knowledge, which increases their self-awareness
and usefulness. But if the new skills and knowledge don't coincide
with their innate talents, the training and development will not
have a major or lasting effect.
It's also important not to try to train everyone in the same job
to behave and perform in the same way. Clearly, we can hold everyone
in the same role accountable for the same result, but we must challenge
each person to reach goals in his or her own way, by using one's
own unique set of talents, skills and knowledge.
Thus, if we are to expect continued employee happiness and engagement,
we must place employees in jobs that match their talents, then provide
proper skills and knowledge training to further them.
This coincides with my experience in Human Capital consulting. Over
many years, I've found that one of the key reasons employees leave
organizations is their inability to use their core strengths and
skills.
Much of U.S. business has not understood this dynamic. Throughout
the sixties and into the early nineties, it was believed that moving
managers from function to function would make them "better
rounded" executives. Sales executives were moved into finance.
Operations supervisors became sales managers. Human Resource people
(then known as personnel) were transferred into manufacturing.
What a disaster this turned out to be. Assuming water had found
its own level - that is, these managers enjoyed what they had been
doing and their talents reasonably matched their job requirements
- when transferred, they found themselves in foreign territory,
and in many cases having to use weaknesses rather than strengths.
This necessitated many extra hours of work and created enormous
stress, which often resulted in stomach ulcers, heart attacks, broken
families and a host of other problems. I personally saw five such
incidents and have learned about scores of others. Perhaps divine
intervention caused this system to collapse, since it likely would
have been the physical demise of bench-strength management.
There's an old adage that says, "we do best what we best like
to do." In other words, we excel when we're involved in things
that interest us and which use our strengths rather than our weaknesses.
When we have an interest in an activity, and we're using a strength
to complete it, it's often viewed as "fun" instead of
"work" and we therefore put our mental, physical and emotional
being into it.
So, one way to keep employees happy and engaged is to stop promoting
or moving them into areas that do not match their talents. It's
also important that all levels of management understand the difference
between talents - which cannot be taught or transferred from one
person to another - and skills and knowledge, which can. Performance
management must be based on the use of individual talents, which
should be strengthened by learning new relevant skills and knowledge.
Thus, we can achieve engagement through accountability that involves
enjoyment and fun, rather that directive and drudgery.
Accountability as a Critical Condition for Engagement
And speaking of accountability, let's look at its critical role
in employee engagement.
Mismanagement in this area often has led to much employee disengagement.
Instead of establishing appropriate accountability systems, managers
often use bullying tactics to achieve high productivity. However,
these are a throw-back to Neanderthal management, and I've found
them to be effective only in the short term. When supervisors continually
scream and yell, employees eventually either tune-out or leave.
For example, a client phoned me one day, complaining that a certain
department was experiencing considerable turnover and therefore
unacceptable performance. Internal exit interviews by the immediate
supervisor and human resources weren't uncovering any unusual reasons
for the exceptional number of departures. I suggested that I personally
interview several former employees. I discovered the supervisor
had used bullying tactics on most of his subordinates in order to
get quick results. He had screamed and shouted, and even thrown
plates and cups of coffee at them, saying that if they reported
any of this, they would, "get a lousy performance rating and
no raise." Obviously, the subordinates had been too demoralized,
frightened and intimidated to give honest exit question responses
to both the supervisor and human resources.
The company didn't want to terminate the supervisor because he was
well regarded in his highly technical field. Thus, it was determined
that leadership coaching might change his behavior. After six months
of instruction and monitored implementation of leadership techniques,
his management by intimidation was transformed into management by
consensus and accountability. Subordinates were happy again and
felt they were part of a team. Turnover nearly stopped and productivity
increased substantially. In short, employees again were engaged
in their work.
Accountability, coupled with monetary incentives, also can be an
effective engagement tool, provided the incentives reward the right
results. If not, a disengagement backlash can follow.
An example of this was a client's telesales group, which had been
accountable and incented only on the number of calls made rather
than on sales. The supervisor's view was, "if enough calls
are made, the law of averages will apply and a sufficient number
of sales will be profitable to make my bottom line budget."
However, profitability had been poor, since the telesales staff
tended to pitch only the easy-to-sell, low-priced merchandise. The
telesales staff was happy with its incentive plan, but was being
blamed for the problem and thus was disengaging. Members were thinking
the department soon may be re-staffed or discontinued. With some
training in up-selling techniques, as well as installation of an
up-sell rewards system, employees became re-engaged and performance
improved quickly.
Similarly, a production team had been incented only on the number
of products assembled rather than on production related to quality.
Consequently, quality had been poor and returns were high. This
dramatically affected company profitability and the bonuses in other
departments - there was a chain reaction throughout the entire company.
Production employees were being called sloppy, with inadequate skills.
Although happy with their incentive plan, which rewarded the wrong
things, they disliked being blamed for the quality problem and were
disengaging. When a fair and equitable (not always easy to quantify)
quality control system was installed - and after the bugs were worked
out of the system - re-engagement occurred, production quality improved
and so did profitability.
Thus, to maintain happy, engaged employees, it's vital that individual
accountability be established to measure the "right" performance,
with rewards that are proportional to results.
It's also important to clarify accountability regarding engagement
with customers. It's often said that nothing happens until we make
a sale. Without that, there's no reason for production, finance,
administration, human resources, or any of the rest of an organization.
However, if a customer doesn't buy again, our cost of sales will
be much too high, since it's always easier and less costly to sell
an existing customer something new, than it is to find a new customer.
Thus, the customer must be a focus for employee accountability,
and rewarded accordingly.
Recently, a client was having a major problem with declining sales.
Customers simply weren't buying any new services created by the
Director of Marketing and her staff. The marketing department staff
was becoming discouraged and disengaged, some even were looking
for new jobs. After some digging, I found marketing had conducted
no focus groups, no customer preference surveys, or any other research
as to what customers wanted/needed. Instead, the Director of Marketing
had used her "gut" as a guide to customer wants and needs
for new services. Unfortunately, I've found this kind of personal
empiricism to be quite prevalent in small and medium sized organizations.
However, with a re-alignment of customer preference accountabilities
the range of new services changed, sales increased and staff re-engagement
occurred.
Of course, not all employees or departments have external customers.
Many, such as human resources, information technology, accounting
and parts of administration, etc., have internal customers. That
is, they deliver a product or service to another group or department
within the organization. These customers are no less important,
since ultimately they reflect, in one way or another, the external
image and reputation of the organization. Thus, clarifying accountabilities
for internal customers is just as vital for maintaining employee
engagement as that for external customers.
For example, not long ago I received an assignment involving the
lateness of data reporting of an accounting unit. The financial
data for which this unit was responsible was always late in reaching
its customer, the sales department. After many complaints about
accounting's tardiness, the sales manager finally set-up his own
data gathering function, and considered the report from accounting
"old news" when it arrived. He soon told accounting he
didn't need its reports, and the two people assigned to these were
laid off. This affected morale in the rest of accounting, resulting
in employee disengagement.
I discovered the accounting supervisor had assigned accountability
only to the accuracy of numbers, not to on-time delivery. In his
view, correct data was of prime importance, but he hadn't checked
out this view with his customer, the sales manager. Therefore, he
had four accountants check the reports before they were submitted
to the sales manager. Each of these four people checked the reports
separately, and each in his or her own time (they each had other
duties). Thus, the reports were nearly always late.
The supervisor's lack of assigning proper on-time accountability
(on-time delivery) to those preparing and checking the reports,
as well as the lack of a needs analysis of his customer (the sales
manager), were keys to the problem of lateness, the resulting employee
terminations and department disengagement.
When the on-time element was understood by all, and the report checkers
developed a method for checking the reports together, instead of
separately, the reports began arriving at the sales manager's office
on-time. Shortly afterward, accounting department morale improved
substantially, and re-engagement occurred.
So, accountability measurement requires that each employee understand
expectations. It's a sad fact, however, that according to Gallup
research, 58% of U.S. workers cannot strongly agree with the statement,
"I know what is expected of me at work." In this kind
of environment, it's no wonder many accountability systems cause
disengagement.
Another example of a lack of understanding expectations involves
a newly formed manufacturing unit that was performing poorly. In
my discovery process, I found that the supervisor had created job
descriptions for the unit and had hired according to talent profiles
we'd established - certainly a good start. But, he had not set up
accountabilities for each job. When performance slowed, he blamed
the employees, who had no idea about what was expected of them.
As a consequence, they became disengaging, which exacerbated the
problem. After we assigned accountabilities, with proportional rewards,
employees again became interested in their jobs and the unit, which
quickly improved performance.
For accountability to foster engagement, it must relate to department
and corporate bottom lines, and it should be rewarded accordingly.
When proper accountabilities are coupled with appropriate placement
of talent and its development, engagement will nearly always occur.
Appraisal as a Critical Condition for Engagement
Proper employee appraisal is the third critical element in establishing
employee engagement. If appraisal systems are inconsistent or misunderstood,
if they measure the wrong things or measure them improperly, disengagement
can result.
In my experience, the purely subjective, or "open-ended"
appraisal method can cause the most misunderstandings and employee
disengagement. In this method, supervisors measure and rate employees
on an unguided basis (no established standards or elements for measurement
exist). Often - particularly in medium-sized and small organizations
- an appraisal form which lists the competencies, behaviors or components
of productivity for measurement doesn't even exist. This leads to
inconsistent, unequal measurements and judgements among supervisors
in similar units - apples are measures by one, oranges by another
- and employees suffer, resulting in disengagement. Certainly, some
open-ended questions or issues can be appropriate, but at a minimum,
a standardized set of components/subjects for measure must be adopted
(benchmarks established, against which appraisals are made), along
with guidelines about how and when to use the appraisal system.
A second potential problem regarding appraisals can arise when they
are administered only by supervisors, and no other employees are
involved. Although a guided (non-open) format certainly helps, this
method leaves the supervisor with the sole judgement of productivity
and behavior. Obviously, personal bias can lead to inequities in
measurement between subordinates, which often results in unit or
team employees disengaging.
I've found the 360° appraisal method - in which the supervisor,
several peers and subordinates, as well as perhaps customers, vendors
and others participate - is much more equitable. This method provides
a much more broadly based view of employees, their competencies
and performance.
I recall a client was experiencing low productivity and an exodus
of employees in an administrative unit. Employee interviews, as
well as those with exiting workers, indicated they felt discriminated
against by their supervisor, particularly during their anniversary
appraisals. They said they thought the supervisor only gave "good
reviews" to those she liked. The others received low ratings
and no compensation increase. Thus, many were discouraged and some
were leaving the company.
I installed a 360° review process, involving appraisal among
peers and even subordinates. This resulted in quite a diversity
of opinion, which often was quite different from that of the supervisor.
Raises were now based on the consensus of all opinion, not just
that of the supervisor. Re-engagement occurred.
A third potential problem with appraisals, and their contribution
to disengagement, is the language often used. For example, if an
employee's persuasiveness is to be measured, a problem of definition/meaning
can occur, since the word can mean different things to different
people. For one person it brings to mind Mother Theresa motivating
others to give to the poor, for another it signifies the hard-sell
of a used car salesman. When undefined, unclarified words are used
in the appraisal process - whether used with supervisors, peers,
subordinates or others - inconsistent, entirely inappropriate, unfair
measurements can result, which ultimately can cause disillusionment
and disengagement.
Some years ago, all employees in a client's operations unit were
receiving unusually high appraisal ratings. This was subsequent
to a period in which the opposite had been true. Nothing much had
changed in the unit, except the appraisal results. My interviews
with several unit employees indicated that many had been disappointed
and angry about previous appraisals. All employees received annual
360° appraisals, with the supervisor, several peers, subordinates
and others participating. However, I discovered that many employees
rating others hadn't understood the meaning of some of the competencies
listed in the appraisal form - many tended to be in "management
lingo." And, for those who did understand these terms, there
tended to be a large disparity in meaning.
Thus, the 360° process frequently measured employees incorrectly,
resulting in few compensation increases and a sense of inadequacy
and disillusionment. As a result, as well as to "beat the system,"
many workers began making deals among themselves - "I'll give
you top ratings if you give me the same. That way, we both get a
raise." This created short-term employee engagement, but for
the wrong reasons. Obviously, it couldn't last.
When the appraisal elements were clarified and defined, with everyone
understanding the meaning of words and concepts, things settled
back down and engagement was maintained for the right reasons.
A fourth issue surrounding appraisal systems involves the alignment
of employee strengths with their development. As we've discussed,
when strengths are improved through skills and knowledge training,
employee performance inevitably improves. Thus, the appraisal system
must measure the willingness of employees to engage in training,
as well as rate their resulting improvement.
A client company was experiencing a lack of interest in the many
training and development opportunities offered. Even when these
programs were offered at no cost to employees, very few employees
took advantage of them. I found through employee interviews that
whenever they enrolled in these programs, their annual reviews didn't
credit them for their improvement efforts. The view was, "why
bother?" Thus, there was little productivity improvement because
there was no talent development. The result was fewer raises and
a spiral downward in morale, productivity and engagement.
With the simple addition of two additional elements for measure
on the appraisal form - "efforts at continuing education"
and "productivity improvement due to continuing education"
- employees again began enrolling in training programs, productivity
improved, raises ensued and re-engagement occurred.
Teams as a Critical Condition for Engagement
With continuing corporate mergers and acquisitions, as well as with
their resulting re-organizations and downsizings, I'm finding the
traditional reporting structure of from five to ten employees eroding
quickly. Now, I'm seeing many managers with twenty, thirty, even
forty employees reporting to them. The old hierarchical methods
of management ("I'm going to watch the actions of every one
of my subordinates") simply can't work under these conditions.
Instead, self managed teams are formed to perform every conceivable
task. These teams often have no manager or supervisor. They are
consensus-driven, with each team member responsible and accountable
for certain actions and results.
The difficulty with this self-managed team concept (or any other
team formation for that matter), is that the team will succeed or
fail based on the talents and behaviors of the team members. Bad
choices in members result in a failed team; good choices mean a
successful team. If success and synergy do not occur, morale will
suffer and team member disengagement may follow.
So, how should we choose these members, in order to create a successful
team that continues its members' engagement? The answer is: use
appropriate team building techniques.
Over many years of consulting, my colleagues and I have developed
a very effective method to build teams. It involves analyzing the
exact competencies needed for each team member (talents - composed
of strengths, interests, needs, stresses, behaviors, thoughts and
feelings - in terms of management/operating/leadership styles).
I do this through the use of a 360° assessment instrument. Then
I use competency measuring tools, such as the previously discussed
Birkman Method, to ensure the chosen candidates match the needed
competencies. This assures the team leader, as well as team members,
that there will be a synergy of action and a lack of conflict.
I recall a human resources team that seemed unable to establish
itself as anything but a recruiter for secretaries and assistants.
The Director of HR had developed many impressive programs, and had
hired a Manager of Organizational Development to implement them.
However, because of the department's less than stellar reputation,
morale was low and getting lower. Several employees departed and
engagement was declining. I was asked to help solve the problem.
After interviewing several internal potential users/customers, I
determined there was no "outreach" from the HR staff.
In other words, nobody in the department was selling its services
to the rest of the organization. We did some competency assessment
of the HR staff, and found that none of them had the talent for
selling/outreach. They all were either administrators or program
developers, but not salespeople.
After a teambuilding session, in which the staff itself determined
what to do after seeing the assessment results, signs were placed
in every HR office that said, "think green" - meaning
the quadrant of a grid used in teambuilding to indicate salespeople.
Several staff members were transferred to other departments and
others were hired who had talents in the sales area. Soon, HR's
new programs were being "sold" and implemented, morale
improved significantly and staff re-engagement occurred.
In summary, to determine if employee engagement exists, we need
only to look for several key indicators: individual employee participation,
open communication, innovation, continuous improvement and empowerment.
If these are present in the workforce, it is likely engaged.
However, the conventional methods of creating these indicators,
and thus employee engagement, aren't working. Competency-based selection
systems aren't chosen or used properly, appraisal systems measure
the wrong things, development programs don't often consider employee
talents, and training needs aren't properly analyzed.
Instead of these conventional methods, there are four alternate
ways to create the indicators of employee engagement. First, improve
the placement and use of talent in specific jobs (including skills
and knowledge training to further develop those talents) through
the use of competency assessments with greater validity of measurement.
Second, use accountability and incentive systems that more precisely
tell employees what is expected of them - and then reward when that
expectation is met. Third, implement performance appraisals that
better measure expected results and improvement. Fourth, build teams
based on the right mix of talent.
If the U.S. is to succeed in a global economy, it must greatly reduce
the Gallup statistic that 70% of workers are not engaged in their
jobs, and the Conference Board's finding that 53% of U.S. workers
are unhappy in their jobs. We can replace these sad report cards
with much better ones!
|
