photo by photomish dan
A sobering article from the Economist illustrates how unhappy people currently are with their jobs. When the economy turns expect to see a massive surge in voluntary turnover. The article included some alarming numbers from the US-based Center for Work-Life Policy:
Between June 2007 and December 2008 the proportion of employees who professed loyalty to their employers slumped from 95% to 39%; the number voicing trust in them fell from 79% to 22%.
Employers have the upper hand these days, but what good is that if nobody is willing to bring their best? Quality work doesn’t flow from mistrust.
The employment process is a two-way street. Employers need to get quality ideas and execution. The employees, however, are trickier. They all need something different. Each is motivated differently, has different goals and needs to be communicated with in a certain manner.
There is no magic bullet to engaging people except by taking the time to know what makes them tick. Clearly, these economic times are tough. And companies are taking the opportunity to pare back and let loose the dead wood.
This requires doubling down on the efforts to learn about the others in order to make sure they don’t all check out as well.
Better yet, build this into your process. Don’t wait for dire economic times to trim the workforce. Frankly, people who aren’t engaged and aren’t fitting in with the culture are a drag on your time and bring others down with them.
Start with who you hire and remember it.
Times are dire. Not just for the unemployed, but for the employers as well.
The job market is far more fluid these days and once companies start hiring again we’re guaranteed to see that fluidity in action. Protect your most valuable assets and get the most out of them as you can.
photo by phineas h
Interviewing is hard enough.
But, last week I had a great meeting with a forward-thinking, culturally aware Corporate Development officer. He was touting the benefits of re-interviewing.
Put simply, it’s the company taking an active interest in the employee’s career development.
It’s something he does every 4-6 months. And its purpose is to probe into whether people are getting what they need out of their job. Whether they are heading in the right direction. Whether there is anything that is preventing them from fully engaging in their job.
The cynic will say that it’s the company trying to extract more blood from the turnip. And there is some of that. But ultimately, the employment relationship is just that…a relationship. You have to give in order to get.
By inserting himself into the individual’s career management process, he learns what they want out of the job and can help deliver upon that. How else does the company know what buttons to push in order to properly motivate? (Hint: money isn’t usually it.)
To illustrate he told me the story of someone in the Corporate Development realm (aka HR) who really wanted to be an accountant. She had been taking classes at night and had recently completed her certification. While there wasn’t a position open, he was able to get her involved in projects with the AP/AR groups.
She was still expected to fulfill her duties in the HR space, but she eagerly took on the additional work because it was what she really wanted to do and because the company (and one individual in particular) was willing to take the time to understand what she needed to get.
A role may not open up and she may have to leave in six-months in order to find full-time accounting work. But the alternative was losing her outright now and getting less out of her while she ’secretly’ sought a new job.
It was an important arrow in his quiver to be able to better understand his team. And a practice that motivates and engages his team. If people are a good fit with your company’s values then moving them to a different seat on the bus is a no-brainer. It builds goodwill and the sense of reciprocity fiercely kicks in. These people become far more likely to go the extra mile that will make a difference to your business.
He made a few additional points that are worth sharing:
Do you do something similar? What works/doesn’t?
photo by laffy4k
After reading another comment by a seasoned HR professional on a LinkedIn group that blindly valued ‘diversity,’ I felt the need to explore the topic.
Too often our discussions on diversity in the workplace are rooted in the obvious. Our analysis is literally skin deep and from there we draw conclusions that because one is [select a color] and/or [select a gender] they must have different life experiences and think about things differently. Our teams would, therefore, be better if they were a part of them.
Stereotyping isn’t the best way to improve team performance.
While I’m a big believer in bringing together people with different expertise, I also believe you need to have a foundation upon which everyone implicitly agrees to build. People must have enough in common so that they’re willing to explore their differences.
Being able to productively dissent requires one to a) listen, b) be able to communicate in a way that gets considered and c) have the trust of the majority that you’re still working toward the greater goal.
It’s imperative then that we assemble people who have similar values and who communicate in a similar fashion.
What to accomplish and how to accomplish it are grounded in values. If we don’t share similar values then we’ll fail to agree on these fundamental starting point for any team. Likewise, you and I aren’t suddenly going to have a “you got chocolate in my peanut butter” moment if what you’re saying has no chance of getting heard because of the way it’s being said.
Evolving an idea requires both sides to be willing to move off their original position (this is different than compromising). You have to be willing to consider that you’re not 100% right. But if you don’t trust the person with the alternative approach then you’re likelihood to move from your position is slim. Sharing some common values makes it easier for us to trust one another because we can relate to what motivates the thinking. We disassociate ourselves from the conversation and begin implicitly agreeing that the ‘best answer’ revolves around satisfying the values we share.
America’s current health care debate is an unfortunate illustration of this. For the most part, both sides are a bunch of entitled white guys. About as homogeneous a group as you’ll ever find. Surely, they’d be highly susceptible to group think, right? Instead they’re guilty of not thinking. There is no willingness to move the ball down the field because their value systems are so incredibly divergent and the way they talk past each other fails to find the ears of those on the ‘opposing’ side.
I’m not advocating that we hire and assemble homogeneous teams by any means. But I am pushing for us to consider each person individually in terms of how they think and how they communicate to establish whether they have enough in common with our existing team to make a difference.
We have a long way to go to establish equality in the workplace, but valuing diversity simply by trying to assemble the 64-pack of Crayolas isn’t going to do anyone any favors.
—
This is a can of worms. Please feel free to disagree in the comments, but do so respectfully (that’s one of my values).
photo by pattyequalsawesome
Sometimes you run across derivatives of the same idea from multiple sources and it gets you to stop and listen.
Two recent examples have come from Netflix and Miles Davis.
Ultimately, it’s about how best to maintain a leadership position by enabling those around you to explore new boundaries. Leading and corralling rather than managing.
Netflix has posted a rather lengthy, but worthwhile slide show about their culture and how they work. They put it best by asking their managers to provide ‘context, not control’ (slides 76 - 84). In essence, describe where you want to go, not how you want to get there.
And The Miles Davis Story (as relayed by a friend) explored Miles’ proclivity to assemble talented musicians, set the mood for the evening and then walk around the stage as they do their thing. His job was to capture each individual’s wandering explorations and create something cohesive out of it. Sometimes it worked brilliantly. Often it didn’t. But his purpose was to create something that hadn’t been felt before. To do that you have to be willing to try things that don’t pan out.
It takes a unique type of person to be able to lead in this manner.
It’s no wonder that people who are at the top of their game are attracted by this environment. If you’re looking to set the direction for your industry then it’s a leadership style worth considering.
photo by mrpattersonsir
Work is draining. For many, rare are the days when we leave the office feeling energized.
As a manager you have to recognize that people are going through this. Chances are you are too. But change has to start somewhere.
Sure, technically your job is to make sure the ball is being advanced down the field. But if your team is too exhausted (or detached) to run the plays how far is the ball going to move?
Your real job is to make deposits into the emotional bank so that when the inevitable time comes when the team needs to hunker down and everything has gone sideways that people are present, engaged and have the persistence to get through the rough patches.
From the employees perspective, they have gone out of their way to make the relationship work. They started in their role excited and ready to roll up their sleeves and make a real difference. But every slight along the way has made a withdrawal on their emotional involvement with you, the team and with the company.
It all adds up and you may be responsible for making many of those emotional withdrawals. If you expect them to dig in then you need to exert the energy to refill that account.
Focus on your people. Feed them the projects that keep them energized. Recognize they’re all different and build those relationships accordingly. People do want to be treated differently. They’re not all the same and not universally motivated by the same things.
Start today. Hold one on ones that don’t focus on tasks but rather the individual. The work will still get done.
Copyright ©2008-2009 RoundPegg Inc.