Topsy turvy management, active dis-engagement and the return of the supervisor in this week's Three To See.
My first pick is Put Your Employees First, an interview with Vineet Nayar, CEO of HCL Technologies Ltd, for Harvard Business Review in which he talks about engaging employees by 'inverting the management pyramid.'
The paper explores how top-performing organisations have adopted the systematic improvement of employee engagement as a core strategy to achieving critical business outcomes and suggests that the Engaged/Actively Dis-engaged Ratio has a significant bearing on this.
There is some interesting content here, including a comparison of the distribution of engaged employees in average and world class organisations:
Engaged: 33% in average organisations compared to 67% in those considered to be world class
Not Engaged: 49% in average organisations compared to 26% in those considered to be world class
Actively Dis-engaged: 18% in average organisations compared to 7% in those considered to be world class
Paul Hebert posted my final pick to the Fistful of Talent blog: More Supervision, Less Management is a wry reminder of the difference in emphasis of the two in which Hebert urges us to "Quit Managing".
Conley discusses the intangible motivational factors that stimulate engagement, proposing that leaders be responsible for cultivating the conditions for individuals to flourish by using metrics that matter and not just the mundane, citing the Bhutanese example of using Gross National Happiness as a measure of national wealth instead of Gross Domestic Product and employing, as one of 9 key indicators used to measure GNH, the question; "How do you feel about how you spend your time each day?"
Chris Ferdinandi illustrates the importance of this to employers with the quote below from his post on the Renegade HR blog; HR101:
"You can have the best HR practices, programs and processes in the world, but if people aren’t happy with the work they’re doing and the manager they work for, it doesn’t matter."
Derek Irvine's post to the Globoforce blog: Culture & Change * It's ALWAYS about the People echoes the sentiments of my previous two picks by examining the influence of culture on organisational change and urging practitioners to:
"Prepare for inevitable change now. Start fostering a culture centered on your people."
Zinger makes some incisive comments about Employee Engagement including this:
"Engagement is about achieving results that matter to all. Ensure that everyone benefits from engagement and ensure employees fully realise engagement is not a management term for ‘sucking out more discretionary effort’ from employees."
And:
"Ensure managers realise that engagement is not an extra on top of far-too-many demands. Help managers and leaders realise engagement is how we manage and lead in this decade. We engage through co-created results, conversation, collaboration, community and high quality connections."
I wonder what he'd make of the strip below from Dilbert creator, Scott Adams?
OK, so employee satisfaction and employee engagement is not the same thing - although rating satisfaction may provide a means of engaging with employees and assessing likely levels of motivation, loyalty, morale etc - I just hope that this gag doesn't resonate in your workplace.
Ironically enough, the results just aren't there yet
Haun's post is a valuable contribution to the discussion on the "Results Only Work Environment" which I mentioned in previous posts in the summer of 09 and earlier this year.
In Three To See this week; new social stats, HR hate abates and employee fear-fatigue.
My first pick came via Luis Suarez on the Content Management Connection blog: Social Media Revolution 2 from Socialnomics.
There are some interesting stats in the clip but one that stood out for me was the claim that "80% of companies use social media for recruitment" and that 95% of these use LinkedIn, prompting me to ask recruiters the question - does this reflect your experience?
"The real problem is that too many organizations aren't as demanding, as rigorous, as creative about the human element in business as they are about finance, marketing, and R&D. If companies and their CEOs aren't serious about the people side of their organizations, how can we expect HR people in those organizations to play as a serious a role as we (and they) want them to play?"
Taylor isn't letting HR off the hook with this statement, rather he is defining the valuable role that the profession can play in a way that outsiders can understand:
"You can't be special, distinctive, compelling in the marketplace unless you create something special, distinctive, compelling in the workplace. Your strategy is your culture; your culture is your strategy. The most successful companies I know understand that the most important business decisions they make are not what new products they launch or what new markets they enter. What really matters is what new people they let in the door — who they hire — and how they create an environment in which everyone in the organization can share ideas, solve problems, and develop a psychological and emotional stake in the enterprise."
Roesler describes a common, problematic approach to talent management making three points that illustrate the ideas of Pink:
"Frequently there are numerous--I've seen as many as thirty --competencies attached to a position. If God decided to offer up only ten commandments to successfully live a lifetime, thirty seems a bit much for a supply chain manager.
Assessment centers, 360 feedback, and other tools are used to find out who has what competencies and to what degree. That's fine and they can be very accurate. Just tell me when you find someone who is competent at thirty of anything.
The actual ideas of genuine "talent" and related passion and excitement often don't show up on the radar screen in discussions. It takes relationships, discernment, and deep conversation to get at the heart of a person's real talents and how best to use them organizationally. "
"Those who succeed at creating meaning — either on their own or with the help of their boss — tend to work harder, more creatively, and with more tenacity, giving the companies that employ them a leg up in the marketplace. What's more, study after study suggests that when employees experience meaning, their employers enjoy higher rates of customer commitment and investor interest."
This ties-in with another Pinkism: Transcendent Purpose. The Ulrichs then go on to identify seven drivers of "meaning" that can be leveraged by employers:
"Help employees identify and creatively use the strengths, traits, and values (like integrity, leadership, love of learning, kindness, etc.) with which they most identify
Match the purposes (insight, achievement, connection, or empowerment) that motivate employees to the jobs they do.
Foster friendships and key relationship-building skills — like making and receiving bids and apologizing effectively — to create high-performing, high-relating teams.
Promote positive work environments through attention to characteristics like humility, selflessness, order, and openness.
Help people identify and work at the types of challenges that line up with their personal experience of engagement or flow.
Build in time for both individual and corporate-level self-reflection to help people discover lessons from setbacks and develop the resilience to get in front of the pace of change.
Encourage civility and delight from little things that personalize and civilize the world of work
What do you think of the wisdom of the talent crowd?
