CareerCurve™

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.

Recruiting is an important piece of HR and hiring inexperienced recruiters could be having a big impact on your business.  A good recruiter does a lot more than ask a few generic interview questions, match up key words between a resume and a job description, and comment on whether the candidate presented well in the interview. 

Employees are the most valuable asset in any organization so doesn’t it make sense that your most highly qualified and expert talent is in the recruiting area? 

If you are a company that values creativity with employees who think outside the box, bring a different perspective to the table, and are problem solvers you should assess your recruiters.  Do your recruiters have a lot of experience?  Do they have solid business acumen?  Have they been well trained and do they use statistics and science or do they rely on instinct and operate on the surface level of filling jobs, such as matching key words?

Many times, companies say one thing and do another.  If you want to attract top talent and give your organization a competitive advantage you must be sure the people doing your hiring are of the highest level of talent themselves.   

Do your recruiters sit down with the hiring managers to understand in depth what the position entails?  Do they make recommendations that encompass not only technical expertise and previous experience but also the more difficult to identify soft skills? Do they consider strategic corporate goals when interviewing and discuss business objective such as performance management and succession planning? 

Good recruiters may be more important than you realize.  The more talented they are the more talented your staff will be and ultimately, the more productive and profitable your company will be overall.

This is the percentage of top performers who plan to leave their company in the next year, according to research.  60%!!!   Out of one million employees, 600,000 of them will quit.  And these are your high performers. 

How many of these employees will be yours?  It’s been hard to avoid the fact that rumor has it people are done with “I’m just happy to have a job” and are currently laying the groundwork to move on.  But hearing about it and seeing the numbers are two different things. 

The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey reported in October that the number of employees voluntarily quitting their jobs has surpassed involuntary terminations through layoffs and discharges.  According to the research, this shift occurred in August.  Okay, we’ve been hearing that too, but let’s take a look at these numbers.  In August 2010, 1.998 million people quit their jobs, while 1.830 million employees were terminated or discharged.

Couple these numbers with the fact that disengagement is higher than it usually is during economic times like these and making engagement and retention important business initiatives for the new year better be at the top of your agenda.

I’ve posted about most of these individually, but here is a short list summarizing some of the important ones:

Don’t just throw money at it.  When ranking motivators, high performers DO NOT list salary first.  It’s not even in the top 3.

Listen.  If you let them, your best employees will tell you what they want.  And you might be surprised to find it won’t cost you much.

Define and implement career development programs.  High performers want to know that they can advance and grow and what specifically they need to do to accomplish that growth.

Re-evaluate your management.  Employees quit managers more often than they quit companies.

Organize business objectives and bonus potential frequently.  This forces communication between management and employees and communication drives engagement.

Be as transparent as possible.  Or at least appear to be.  Perception trumps reality when it comes to your employees.

I’ve posted previously about the culture of an organization and the various roles it plays in retention, trust, engagement level, and overall productivity of the company.  I’ve also said that culture is to an organization what character is to an individual.  But did you ever think about the connection between an ethical culture and effective compliance programs?

A strong ethical culture exists when doing the right thing takes precedence over getting the job done.  In short, HOW things are done matters most.  The Ethics Resource Council has published many fascinating studies on numerous topics related to ethics but one I found particularly interesting discusses the effectiveness of workplace compliance programs depending on the ethical culture.  This study also discusses the most important factor in establishing a strong ethical culture.

Compliance programs are meant to both reduce misconduct and increase reporting of misconduct.  If you have a strong ethical culture your employees feel less pressure to commit misconduct. Because they don’t feel pressured they are also far less likely to observe misconduct by others.  In strong cultures employees are much more likely to report misconduct and the retaliation rate drops considerably.  This means your compliance program is far more likely to be effective.   To me it seems as though a strong ethical culture is key to uniting the organization toward a common goal where those that want to break the rules are not welcome and should be reported.

So what is the most important component in creating a strong ethical culture in your organization?  The behavior and perceived behavior of top management and executives. 

Keep in mind that most of this is based on perception.  When considering ethics, perception is reality.  It doesn’t matter nearly as much WHAT is happening.  It’s all about what the employees THINK is happening.  The actions and perceived ethics of top management drive the culture and the culture has the largest impact on the critical components of compliance issues. 

To  implement effective compliance programs building and maintaining a strong ethical culture needs to be a business goal.   This has an impact on the risks and costs of misconduct (legal action, turnover, retaliation), as well as company reputation and employer brand.  Creating this culture has to start at the top and can be accomplished by transparency, communication, building trust, and walking the talk.

This is one situation where a top down business model is still the most effective.

Do you have effective compliance issues?  Do you have a strong ethical culture in your organization?

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.

Your employees are struggling to have faith in anything anymore. Most people are experiencing a loss of trust with government, the banking system, the housing market, big business – I could go on and on.

As an organization, what can you do to restore trust and faith? Trust is the guiding force behind motivation, engagement, retention and ultimately, productivity. Trust is earned through communication.

Communicate effectively and earn trust. Earn trust and in return you will get motivated (or even inspired) employees. Motivated employees are engaged and stick around. The result for your company? Productivity.

Thinking about it in this format (an outline, of course – you know how I love outlines) means you need to master step one. If you focus on effective communication, everything else follows.

So, how do you achieve effective communication?

Transparency.

But how can a company be transparent. Well it can’t be.   But the culture can. And as I’ve said before, character is to an individual what culture is to an organization.

How do you create a transparent culture?

1. Be honest.
   You don’t have to tell everybody everything but what you do tell should be the truth.
2. Be forthcoming.
   Share as much information, unprompted, as possible. Your employees will feel like they are part of something bigger and not only will this encourage trust but they will feel valued. For most, this is one of the top three things employees want from their company.
3. Don’t pretend to know what you don’t.
   Admitting your own limitations gives you credibility. People more easily trust those that don’t act as if they know everything. A little humility goes along way.
4. Define corporate values.
   Figure out what the corporate values are and share them with the employees. Making these values a priority helps get everyone on the same page. At the very least, make them understood. Gray area creates trust issues.
5. Follow through.
   If you don’t know something, get the answer. Or at least get the employee in touch with a person or resource who can get the answer.
6. Be consistent.
   Regarding corporate values, once they are defined, demonstrate them every day. Values should not be a list that are a lofty goal, they should be action that is visible in the way you work at all times.
7. Have opinions.
   Don’t be afraid to take a stand. Your opinions should align with the corporate values and you should be definitive in stating them. Stand firm.
8. Be open to other opinions.
   Here is another area where a little humility goes a long way. Be firm in your opinions but, be open-minded to changing them if a persuasive and logical reason is presented. Taking a definitive stand on something just because it’s always been that way stifles innovation and reduces the amount of trust your employees have in their superiors.
9. Be responsive and genuine.
   If you haven’t reached a solution, seek them out and tell them that. If you have, let them know as soon as possible what the results are. Don’t make them come back to you.

Transparency is an essential part of communication and effective communication will create an aligned,  happy and productive workforce.

I once spent a year (well, I really only made it 8 months) in a cubicle with a Judy-from-Time-Life headset on.  As I’ve mentioned before, I HATED this job.  I worked for a credit card company and my job was to provide exceptional customer service.  Now, I LOVE exceptional customer service.  I really like getting it, but what excites me even more, is giving it.  I’m a problem-solver by nature and I absolutely love a challenge – the harder the better – bring it on!  So why did I hate this job so much? 

It’s called Cognitive Dissonance.  This is a term used to describe that horrible, uncomfortable feeling you get when you are asked to accommodate ideas that conflict with your beliefs.  When I began this job, I was trained and lectured about how customer service was the foundation of our business model.  We were on a mission to provide the best service imaginable thereby gaining loyalty from customers and improved market share by branding ourselves as an organization that cared.  Perfect.  I know what good service is. 

But once we were placed in our cubes, those of us responsible for providing these fantastic customer experiences were paid garbage as a base salary and earned extra incentives (read, a lot of our salary) for how many calls we could take in an 8 hour day. 

Uh…okay.  What??? 

I’m supposed to be committed to solving our customer’s problems but I get paid more if I’m only on the phone for 70 seconds???  Needless to say, the transfer button became my best friend.  It only took me 10 seconds to move them along to another department thus improving my paycheck considerably, unless they took too long to state their question and oh, we had zero patience for that.  Do you think we felt good about the service we were providing?  Did we enjoy being placed in the us (paycheck) or them (customers) conundrum? 

And the effect of this in terms of productivity?  Do you think the customer’s experience was satisfying?  Do you think the customers loved my “How can I help you?” attitude? (Read sarcasm)  Did we successfully brand ourselves as a company that cared? 

Internally, I was one of the best Customer Service Reps in history (or at least one of the highest paid) but externally, I doubt my service was really much of a service to the customer.  

Beware!

Cognitive dissonance is prevalent in many organizations and the negative effects are huge.  Studies show that when confronted with these situations, the reasoning parts of the brain in charge of sound decision making actually turn off.  Emotions take over and the ability to think clearly and act with reason is impeded.   To cope, employees complain, procrastinate, and find ways to get paid back for the burdens they see as being unjustly placed on them.  In addition, dissonant messages snap any connection between the sender and the receiver.  The employees getting these messages become suspicious, lack passion, and don’t trust.   Cognitive dissonance will ultimately create cynical employees and a company full of cynics equals destruction in a company.  How can you possibly have an engaged workforce under these conditions?

Think about how you tell your employees you trust them but make them get three signatures from higher ups to make a purchase.  Think about working to convince them the company cares but when there’s a layoff, the company doesn’t provide any outplacement services.  Think about the message you send when you commend an employee for taking calls on a sick day but require 2 weeks notice and manager approval for a vacation day.

Is it time to focus on company values and use these to dictate the messages? 

What are some of your dissonant messages?  How can you align your organization’s values with the messages you send to your employees?

There are a lot of challenges and different points of view around a previous post I wrote regarding regulating the use of social media in your company.   Since then I have also read a lot of articles about using social media internally as a way to increase engagement. 

I see a number of ways an internal network could make work more productive, such as instantaneous communication (like Twitter), problem solving, (like Groups on LinkedIn), and a consistent documentation of all conversations, which would help keep things on track because you can always refer back to it.  (This is different than meetings where communication is verbal and each person documents their own interpretation in notes.)  Forums would also be helpful, particularly to improve communication for multi-location organizations.  But does any of this truly help engage your employees? 

This article says yes because it inverts the pyramid of communication from top-down to bottom-up. 

What do you think?  Is that giving employees too much control?  Can using social media internally help engage your employee?  How?  Is there too much risk and what are those risk factors?  Could it help you support the company brand, as I discussed here?

Onboarding has become a human resources buzzword but it seems as if many people confuse it with orientation.  The two are similar, but very different.  In fact, I suggest that orientation is simply one small piece of onboarding.  While orientation is an introduction to a new job and some of the nuances of the organization, onboarding is an entire process designed to immerse a new employee into the vision and culture of your company.  Engagement occurs more quickly and the process is also designed to assist in retention by making sure the employee aligns with the organization’s goals and wants to stay.

Onboarding is proving extremely valuable in many areas where human resources is currently challenged such as engagement, workforce optimization, and retention.  Successful onboarding programs result in an employee who is excited by their role, anxious to begin and feels valued for what they can bring to the table.  In other words, the employee becomes engaged quickly which results in a higher level of production in a much quicker timeframe. 

Recent research shows that employees decide shortly after they are hired how long they plan to stay at your company.  Anything you can do to make sure they feel welcome and valued from the day they are offered a position is going to lengthen the time they choose to stay with you. 

Another benefit of an effective onboarding strategy from the date of hire is the effect it has on counteroffers made by their current company.  If a candidate is offered a role and you maintain contact with them in a very positive and welcoming way while they are deciding, they are more likely to view the offer of a raise from their employer in a new light.  Instead of thinking that they just earned a raise, they are more likely to question why they weren’t more valuable to the organization yesterday.  They will also feel great about accepting a job for a company that is already showing that they value the talent they are hiring.

Once a role is accepted, reiterating over and over in many meaningful ways that the employee made the right choice will do wonders for your engagement and retention rates.

Does your organization have an onboarding process in place?  Have you seen this affect your production and retention rates?  If you don’t have a process established, do you see the need for one and are there plans to create one?