CareerCurve™

More than ever companies are concerned with how to keep their top talent.  Among the reasons employees leave are lack of career progress, poor work/life balance, not feeling valued by the company, and bad bosses. 

One retention strategy is to promote from within.  This is a great idea as it addresses a number of retention goals in one shot.  Promoting from within shows loyalty to your employees.  It demonstrates the value an employee has to your organization.  It also provides a path for career progress and creates great bosses. 

Or does it?  Are you actually setting your employees up for failure?

Anyone who has done any research on retention is familiar with the adage “Employees don’t leave bad jobs, they leave bad bosses.”  So if your company promotes from within, how could you have bad bosses?  After all, you are careful in your promotion process.  You evaluate and assess and only advance your highest performers.  

But what do you do after that?  How do you develop and train your managers once they get that promotion?  What are you doing that could be preventing your promoted managers from being successful?

Just because an employee was a high performer in his/her area doesn’t automatically mean he/she will make a great manager.  The abilities required to be an effective leader often differ greatly from those needed in the role the employee just left.  Yes, knowing the previous role inside and out and having excelled there is important, but often, soft skills that haven’t been required before are integral to doing a good job as a manager.  Some of these new necessary skills include:

Objectivity – the new manager is now in a role where being objective is mandatory.

Diplomacy – managers often have to deliver difficult messages. 

Delegation – high performers tend to take on a lot of responsibility.  This is usually why they are high performers.  Delegating means relinquishing control and this can prove to be a difficult adjustment.

Managing Conflict – conflicts will arise and the manager is now responsible for resolving them.  This is probably not something the manager did on a regular basis.  He/she may have even been part of the conflict in the past as opposed to being the one who fixes it.

Business Acumen – managers have to understand the company’s long term goals and realize how the short term objectives fit into these goals.  Then they have to get their team to understand this.

Understanding of Corporate Culture – As an employee, the manager probably didn’t spend a lot of time analyzing the culture but rather adapted to it.  As a manager, the responsibility shifts to understanding it in order to get the team to buy into it and perform accordingly.

Communication – Not only does the manager need to understand the corporate culture and goals but he/she needs to effectively relay them to the team in order to achieve not only the objectives, but alignment with corporate philosophy.

Consider that previously the manager was responsible for his/her part in a project and although most of these skills were undoubtedly required on occasion, the actual work produced was the most important focus.  Even if there were stumbles with these soft skills, the work produced trumped these issues.  Now consider the change for the manager when the work he/she needs to produce IS these soft skills.

If your organization doesn’t pay attention to the magnitude of this promotion, everyone loses.  The company no longer has the high performer in the previous role, the new manager may feel lost and unsure, the team could feel as if they have no leader, and ultimately, everyone is disengaged and starts seeking greener pastures.  Your “Promote from Within” retention strategy just became an anti-retention strategy.

What does your company do after promoting high performers?  Is enough emphasis placed on the difference in skills required to do the job well?  What could the organization do differently?

Given the economic conditions, it is highly likely that you have employees currently experiencing the stress of an unemployed spouse.  Unemployment ranks near the top of the list when it comes to most stress-inducing life experiences, along with divorce and death.  If an employee is living with someone who is going through this doesn’t it stand to reason that this is affecting your employee as well? And does this stress decrease your employee’s productivity?  According to a recent study, yes it does.

Associate Professor Maw-Der Foo and lead author Professor Zhaoli Song of the National University of Singapore co-authored a paper called “Unraveling the Stress Crossover Between the Unemployed and Their Spouses”.  To summarize part of what they discovered, an unemployed spouse can mean a less productive employee.  According to Foo, “our findings call for more attention on the family as an integrated system in responding to the unemployment situation.”

Can and should your organization do anything to assist?  I can think of a few reasons that you should: 

• A calmer and happier employee will be more productive.
• Engagement and retention rates will be higher for those who feel supported by their organization.
• Demonstrating that you care for your employees will positively influence your corporate culture and brand, making you attractive to top performers when you are hiring.

Learning how to support an unemployed spouse in a healthy way could really make a difference to an employee who not only has the added burden of being the sole bread winner, but also has to navigate the emotional terrain of their partner.   But what can your company actually do?

Offer stress management information.  This could be in the form of newsletters, literature, webinars or a counseling session on site.  This could also be as simple as sending a mass email with a link to a relevant article every Friday.

Provide coaching for the employee.  These employees may find themselves stuck between being so compassionate they end up enabling and pushing so hard they seem uncaring.  A healthy balance makes all the difference in successfully supporting their spouse.

Schedule financial management workshops focused on suggestions of how to save money.  Most people have experienced the fear of instability in one way or another over the last couple of years.  As a result, more people are thinking of the future.  This means that practical suggestions on how to live on less money would be very useful, not only to employees with an unemployed spouse but to all employees.

Create a support group within the organization.  This could be done using social media or your intranet.  You could also provide resources to external support groups that already exist.

Taking a little initiative to understand and assist this employee challenge can mean a big payoff for your company.

I am fascinated by ROWE, which stands for Results Only Work Environment and is exactly that - an environment where how, when and where work is accomplished is completely irrelevant. 

Most managers say they evaluate employee performance on the results produced, but is this true?  Don’t things like showing up for work, being available for and attending meetings, and managing corporate politics play a large part in how an employee is evaluated?  With ROWE all of these things are thrown out the window and employees are  evaluated strictly on the quality of work produced. 

ROWE, quite simply, revolves around trusting your employees.  And trusting employees increases engagement and motivation which increases productivity for the company as a whole.  As you know, I am all about instilling trust and the benefits of it, but is it realistic?

This article does a nice job of summarizing the components of creating this type of work environment as well as the types of businesses where it could be successful and the industries where it could not.  I personally find the whole concept very appealing and can see how it could create the type of corporate culture that would not only attract the best and the brightest, but would be a great retention tool as well.  Then, when I stop to think about the details involved in actually running a company this way it’s hard to wrap my head around the fact that anything could actually be accomplished in a timely manner.

Doesn’t a successful company revolve around commitments and deadlines managed by numerous people to accomplish the business objectives?  How do you manage that without meetings, set availability of team members and mandatory updates on progress?  And legally, are the complications it presents worth the rewards?

Have any of you encountered this type of management philosophy?  Was it difficult to implement and do you see better results than a traditionally run organization?  Are your employees happier and more productive and is the quality of their work higher?  Please share real-life experiences in the comments.

Research shows that one very important factor in why older workers leave their jobs is because they don’t feel like they are needed anymore. Older employees will get discouraged when they feel their purpose is in doubt, anyone else in the company can do what they do – and more effectively, and if they start to feel like they are simply taking up space.

I previously posted about attracting and engaging Generation Y employees. That certainly needs to be addressed but another fact is that mature workers have a lot of experience, knowledge, and wisdom that can help your company be more successful. And this means that you need retention strategies for all the generations in your workforce. So what can you do to retain your older employees?

Start a mentoring program. This will help engage your younger employees while at the same time giving purpose and value to the older employees.

Encourage career development. Nothing sends the message that there isn’t any potential left than assuming older employees are uninterested in honing their skills or learning new ones. In addition, you can really benefit from the fact that years of working mean older employees are pretty quick learners.

Consider offering retirement preparation counseling. Just because someone can retire doesn’t mean they will. Older employees just want more control over their future. Providing assistance in this way may produce some interesting results, like someone moving into a different role within the organization or suggesting a consulting or telecommuting role where they continue to help your company on terms that appeal to the employee.

Be open to horizontal career moves. Many mature employees get bored and changing it up a bit may be all that is needed to relight the fire they’ve had in the past.

Provide a specialized wellness program. Incentivize mature employees to participate and offer programs that share dietary and exercise advice. Many older employees are beginning to think of these things in their personal lives. Providing expertise for them at work gives them another reason to stay and to feel valued.

Older employees are more loyal and tend to want to work at one place for the rest of their careers. They also have a strong work ethic, a deep knowledge base and are not as interested in climbing the corporate ladder. All of these can be of huge benefit to you in terms of lower turnover, which is expensive and great experience that can be passed onto your younger employees.  Because they are not fighting for the next promotion they also tend to stay in their jobs longer. 

Understand that retention programs can’t be exactly the same for everyone. Take a look at the percentage of mature workers your company employs and then realize that implementing strategies to retain this group is not only going to reduce costs, but can make your organization more successful.

I listed a few reasons in my previous post that help explain why Gen Y has the work ethic and value system that they have.  Using this knowledge can help you get a better understanding of the things they are looking for when choosing an employer. This, in turn, will ultimately help your organization determine what you need to provide to attract the key talent from this generation and then retain it.

If this generation is focused on minimizing some of the “stuff” their parents worked so hard to get, is more money going to be a huge incentive? If they expect to be praised and appreciated can you manage them effectively with the mindset that “they have to put in their time”?  If you have a generation of employees who believe they can and should have it all, does it make sense to ignore career development in your organization?  If you understand their need for work/life balance based on the fact that they’ve witnessed that life can be very, very short, could your company choose its battles when it comes to things like sabbaticals and volunteer opportunities?  Knowing that this generation is extremely adept and comfortable with technology, will it create the right culture to monitor them like crazy rather than encourage them to spread their knowledge?

In the next five years, we will experience the largest turnover in human capital history. Generation Y has a confidence in their talents and their own self-worth that is unusual in previous generations.  To some companies, it feels like they are being held hostage by these young employees.  In reality, it is just a different approach to work.  Is it impossible to embrace this approach while keeping your mature workforce satisfied?  I don’t know the answer to that but it seems to me that if everyone gets the same choices, why not?  New choices should help everyone.  Here are some examples:

Flexible work schedules.  Gen Y prefers to be measured on the quality of work they do, not the hours they spend doing it.  Other generations may appreciate this new way of working, particularly if they are caring for young children or elderly parents.

Volunteer programs with time off to participate.  Gen Y wants to feel appreciated and that what they do is meaningful.  While they work their way up from entry level work, this could fulfill that need.  Other generations may appreciate the time to give back too, as they juggle their families and responsibilities. 

Focus on Career Development.  Gen Y wants to learn and grow.  If you want to keep them, you may have to provide work and training that will help them move on.  Ironically enough, this will help them stay.  Older generations should respond well, too.  This is one of the perks that engages most employees anyway.

Provide team spaces versus traditional conference rooms.  Gen Y is all about collaboration and mobility.  They don’t want to be stuck behind a desk.  The rest of your workforce might appreciate a more social atmosphere as well.

Develop a mentoring program for technology.  Gen Y doesn’t even think when it comes to using technology – it is the way they’ve always done things.  Enlist their help in updating your company’s technological goals.  They want to feel they are doing something meaningful and implementing programs like this will provide that for them.  Plus you get to tap into their knowledge to educate and inspire your mature workforce so your organization can be on the cutting edge.

Like it or not, the power in the workforce is shifting from the executives to the younger professionals.  This change doesn’t have to be bad.  With some understanding and a little creativity, these changes could end up positively impacting your entire corporate culture.

Many companies are facing the challenge of attracting and retaining top talent.  Many of these employees are part of the Millenial Generation, or Gen Y – those between the ages of 15 and 30.  Gen Y is often viewed as spoiled, demanding, entitled, and unable to accept criticism of any kind.  Maybe if we take a look at WHY Gen Y developed the mindset they have, we can get a better understanding of how to manage them and why it may make sense to accommodate some of their desires.  In a future post, I will discuss things that could help bridge the gap but first there is a need to understand.  To fix a problem, you have to be able to identify it. 

Here are some of the things that have shaped this generation:

Financial security.  Most of this generation grew up watching their parents work long and hard hours to gain money and status.  They have not experienced their parents struggling with mass unemployment and financial difficulties.  To them, work was something that got you more, not enough.  Because of this they believe they can have it all, particularly if you are satisfied with less materialistically.

A child-centralized upbringing.  Gen Y had more of their parents’ time than previous generations.  As a result they tend to believe they should be praised for everything they do and they also expect their work to be meaningful and appreciated, even at the entry level.  They don’t have the mindset that they need to “pay their dues”.  They want what they want and are not embarrassed to ask for it because they feel they deserve it.

Working mothers.  This generation didn’t have to adjust to mom working outside the home, like generations before.  For many of them, this is the way it always was.  They are used to women in leadership roles and know that if they choose, women can work full time and raise a family.  This supports the belief that they can and should have it all.

Terrorism, disasters, and tragedies.  Think about 9/11, Columbine and the rash of nationwide school shootings that followed.  Consider the natural disasters that have occurred like Hurricane Katrina and the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami.  The lesson learned here is that there is more to life than work.  Everything can be over in a moment so why work back-breaking hours for material things?  Relationships are more important and life must be enjoyed.  Gen Y is all about the search for work-life balance.

Technology.  Gen Y is the first generation to have used technology ALWAYS.  The internet was always on, people always texted, social media is a way to have relationships.  Perhaps because of this, a lot of their interaction revolves around groups.  Communication is predominantly faceless, and privacy and solitude are things they’ve rarely seen.  Due to this, many don’t see a need for face time and one-on-one interaction.  To other generations, this may seem cold and insensitive but to them it is normal.  Meetings may seem like a waste of time when you could just discuss the issue over instant message. 

Dealing with generational differences in the workplace can be challenging.  Starting by gaining a little understanding of why these employees are who they are can help remove some of the negativity around the way they are viewed.

One of the top priorities of Human Resource Departments everywhere is creating and maintaining an engaged workforce.  This means employees are excited (or dare I say inspired) to be there, they are happy and they are productive.

There are numerous articles, resources, and studies out there explaining different ways to achieve this utopian state.  I’ve written many of them myself on how important trust is, being transparent, empowering your employees, and managing with values instead of rules.  But how can you tell if you’re there yet?  Rather than focusing on the negative – behaviors that show a lack of engagement – what are some signs that your workforce IS engaged?

Do you have employees who come in early or leave late?  A good sign of engagement is that your people don’t clock watch.  It’s more about getting the job done than getting off on time.

Do your employees look happy?  I spent 3 1/2 hours last week at a company with highly engaged employees.  How did I know this?  Well, when you take a step back and really look around, if it’s there, you can’t miss it.

Are your employees proactive with solutions?  Research shows that engaged workers think creatively and will approach their managers with solutions.  They feel comfortable enough not only to think outside the box, but to proactively discuss their solutions with their colleagues.

Do your employees take ownership of their projects?  If you have a workforce who has a high level of accountability, chances are they are highly engaged as well.

Do your employees continually ask for more responsibility and embrace challenges?  Research indicates that the most highly engaged employees want the chance to learn and are not shy about asking for it.

When you hear work-related conversations between employees do they use the words we and us?  If your employees are engaged with your organization they tend to speak as if they are a member of a team.  You will not hear references to they or them when referring to the company.

What other signs can you share in the comments that show your workforce is engaged?

I have a family member who recently received an invite by his employer to a corporate function on a Saturday night. He is excited to attend and that got me thinking about how many times these things backfire. When my current company plans activities, I also look forward to them and do not feel that it will affect my career if I am unable to attend. But this was not always the case.

In my previous life, I worked for various organizations that planned golf trips (I LOVE golf but trust me, many of my co-workers didn’t), “fun” days involving obstacle courses and relay races (ugh – should’ve called them “Unfun” days), and Whirly-Ball and Paintball outings that we had to pay for ourselves. Each of these, although usually on Saturdays and not necessarily free, certainly felt mandatory. To summarize, my take on corporate social functions was this: If you’re going to make me spend my day off with people from work I would love to define what I consider to be fun. Why should I have to participate and pay for something I have no interest in doing? And I was not the minority.

Was HR aware of this? Did they care? It felt like they probably knew that this is what we thought but that their job was to plan these things, not worry about whether anyone actually got anything out of it.

For HR, two of the challenges with planning corporate events have to be what to do and how to get people to do it. What to do should be relatively simple to decide if you communicate with your employees. Put together well-constructed surveys and vary the types of activities based on the feedback you receive. But how do you avoid the “it’s not mandatory but if you don’t show your face its career suicide” impression?

Is this a product of the culture? I wrote last week about transparency. Transparency breeds trust. Could it really be as simple as that? If you have that trust and you extend an invite that is just that – an invite that employees can respond to in any way they choose – does the feeling that they better at least make an appearance go away because they trust that you say what you mean and mean what you say? If you say it isn’t mandatory, the employees trust that it isn’t?

Is it the delivery? Does it make a difference if the invitation feels like an invitation and not a corporate mandate? Have you ever considered the wording and how it impacts the perception?

Do you know what your employees really think about the social functions your company plans? Are they considered mandatory even though you say they’re not? Is this perception by the employees related to your culture? Do you, in fact, want them to feel they are mandatory? Why? Please share any feedback in the comments.

I was fortunate enough to attend a presentation recently given by a CEO about the strategic role HR has played in the success of his organization.  And he has a very successful company.  Although his HR department has always gotten his full support, I realized while he spoke that there must be things HR can do to earn that support, even if you don’t necessarily have it now. 

One of the things that struck me most was the value he placed on the trends he was informed of by HR regarding his employees.  He counts on HR to be aware of who is doing a poor job of managing, what the employees are frustrated about in the resources they are provided, how the employees feel about where the company is going, how the employees perceive their individual career development – really everything that the employees had to say.  Is it possible that you have this information but never thought to put it together in a cohesive way, present it to the owners or executives, and recommend solutions? 

Another area where he values HR’s is their creativity in coming up with ideas that make employees happy.  These things range from a diner within the building because traffic is hellatious and there is nowhere within walking distance to eat, to the implementation of a “quiet room” for those on break who just need a few moments to decompress in solitude, to an employee recognition program where employees can publicly give kudos to each other via the intranet.  These are just a small number of the programs this company has in place that he credits directly to HR.  Is it possible that you know the different things that would make your employees happier but haven’t made these recommendations under the assumption that nothing would come of it?  Can you show in dollars and cents the impact small changes may make in terms of production?  Or maybe how production is impacted when morale is down?

A third example he mentioned involves HR recommending a different hiring process that aligns with the company values.  HR realized that their most productive employees shared the mindset that fit into the culture of the organization.  The technical skills matter of course, but they suggested that the core qualities that align with the mission statement ultimately end up being more important.  HR recommended 16 personality traits that must be present regardless of skill set because they accumulated examples where the top talent had a derogatory effect on the team and ultimately the company.  Because of the data HR had, they were able to change the hiring process to focus more on these traits than on skills and show why this would ultimately mean more production in the long run.  And it has.  Do you have this information regarding who ends up being a good employee and who doesn’t?  Have you considered recommending a new hiring process based on what you see?

Many seem to think that without the CEO supporting the value of HR, Human Resources can never be a strategic partner in an organization.  But have you ever tried to earn that support?  This particular CEO explained that he has no time for whiners and what he values most is not only a description of a problem but a recommendation on how to fix it.  If you take the approach that you have information that is helpful to the company, support it with data, and then suggest a solution, will you then find yourself with a “seat at the table”?

Maybe it’s time to stop focusing on the lack of support for HR and instead take the initiative to make HR invaluable.  I would love to hear examples of anyone who has tried and what response you received.

Does your organization problem solve using value-based thinking or rule-based thinking?  Do you manage with rules or with values? 

When you are confronted with an HR issue, how do you figure out what to do?  Do you pull out the employee handbook and immediately check out the minute details of the rules?  Or do you assess the corporate values and then figure out the right thing to do?

From what I’ve seen handbooks are usually made up of rules – rules about employee relations and how to communicate, rules governing time and how you spend your day, rules about workplace violence – the list goes on and on.

I don’t think this is the best solution. 

• Too many rules create an environment that causes people to look for loopholes and challenge how far the rules can be bent. 
• They are also reactive, usually put in place after some new issue cropped up, not proactive in guiding desired behavior. 
• Rules break down to can and can’t and leave no room for thinking about what you should or shouldn’t do. 
• Rules are uninspiring and stifling.  You follow them and do nothing more and the result is no creativity in problem solving.  They don’t provoke thought in determining what is right or wrong according to corporate values.

Don’t get me wrong, for the most part I am a rule-follower.  I just favor an approach that is based on doing the right thing and aligns with a value system rather than behavior.  If the values are in place, proper behavior follows.

What if your handbook was a set of values?  Instead of paging through it to see what we are told to do in a given situation, what if we were encouraged to ask ourselves, “What is the right thing to do?”

Is it inconceivable to lay out a set of values and then trust people to use them to guide their behavior?  (As I’ve mentioned, I tend to be idealistic.)  Doesn’t it make more sense to have a collective group who share the same values rather than a group who uses the same handbook? 

What about you?  Are you given the ability to consider what’s right when you manage?  Or do you have a list of cans and can’ts that you follow?