In Search of Employee Happiness

Before boarding my last flight to Europe, I bought the latest copy of the Harvard Business Review (January-February 2012). The front page title had captured my interest: "The Value of Happiness - How Employee Well Being Drives Profits."

Over the years I had often pondered the question of employee satisfaction and its impact on the bottom line. Line managers, I found, are pretty skeptical about the notion that happy employees are more productive. The research I had studied during my graduate years pointed to a negative correlation between job satisfaction and productivity. That is, over the longer haul, employee dissatisfaction affects productivity because employees might decide to leave, file grievances, increase their absenteeism, show up tardy, or behave in an unsafe manner, thus increasing the associated costs of hiring, grievance processing, accidents, or work scheduling.

In humorous terms, I would point out that happy cows might not yield better or more milk, but unhappy cows might gore you. I would get a thunderous laugh and that is about all.

The HRB article does a great job of documenting how the pursuit of contentment has shaped the West's culture and economy. The author Peter Stearns walks you through some interesting comparisons. For example, most East Asian cultures have lower expectations than North Americans are accustomed to. Some Latin American cultures, on the other hand, have higher expectations than their North American cousins. Stearns goes on to point out that attitudes toward happiness do not just differ, they can also change. Understanding the nature of such change can better illustrate the context for happiness and allow us to assess its advantages and downsides.

Research by my alma mater, Louis Allen Worldwide, shows that focus on mere satisfaction should not be the end point. Rather, we should focus more attentively on the level of employee engagement. That is, the extent to which employees are willing to go the extra miles matters a great deal. Employee satisfaction might be a pre-determiner, but it is not necessarily the end result. Research by several organizations shows that highly engaged employees make a greater contribution to the success of their organization than less engaged or disengaged employees. Consequently, the more highly engaged are your employees, the better is your competitive advantage. In a scenario where honing our competitive advantage is key to our survival, the focus on employee engagement is not only an offensive but also a defensive weapon.

During my career, I have had the opportunity to work in highly engaging work cultures where the focus on organizational success outweighs personal stardom and 'lone ranger" temptations. The energy is more formidable, and the satisfaction level much higher than what I have experienced working in cultures where co-workers were not as connected and committed.

Our choice as leaders is rather simple: highly engaged employees and better results versus less engaged or even disengaged employees and lower results. On the surface, the choice seems simplistic, yet in practice, as we focus on other factors we take this fundamental choice for granted.

I am sure that you have your own war stories to tell. I bet that you will find in the recesses of your mind many examples where some organizations you worked at treated this subject differently and with different results. I welcome your observations and comments.

Why Executives Fail?

I recently received a summary description of professor Sydney Kinkelstein's article of 8 years ago: "Why Smart Executives Fail". In the article the author shared his field experience. Executive failures can be seen through the lens of bad habits. Here we go:

Habit #1. Executives see themselves and their companies as dominating their environment. This lack of respect for the competition can be fatal. Someone sooner or later will invent a better solution, if you are not vigilant. I worked many years ago for Control Data Corporation. The company does not exist anymore. Senior executives thought that dominance of the large computer systems world would make them invincible. Guess what? Here comes the PC.

Habit #2. Executives identify so completely with their company that there is no clear boundary between their personal life and their corporation's interests. This total association might be a manifestation of the character of the executive. You know the type. They introduce themselves with their titles because they have nothing else that matters to them more.

Habit # 3. Executives think they have all the answers. Leaders who have all the answers typically have no great followers. Know-it all leaders are shunned by bright subordinates. I had the opportunity to work for a brilliant man who unfortunately surrounded himself with claques -- clapping at every word, laughing at every joke, hiding their real feelings. A palace coup eventually toppled this executive.

Habit # 4. Executives ruthlessly eliminate anyone who is not completely behind them. This habit creates many yes-men and yes women, and idol worship. People with different ideas are essential in any great organization. I witness the presence of consultants inside an organization whose primary role was to police the loyalty of people toward the leader. Anyone suspected of being less than 100% compliant was soon relegated to the dust bin or pushed out. However, those who live by the sword tend to die by it, we are taught.

Habit # 5. Executives are consummate spokespersons, obsessed with company image. This blatantly way of seeking attention turns people off. Few like soap boxes. I have attended too many rah-rah meetings where everyone is driven to a high degree of fervor. That fervor, however, was not matched by results. Soon the top guy became a joke, not to be believed.

Habit # 6. Executives underestimate obstacles. Excessive hype plus yes-people eventually leads to painful lessons. The air of invincibility masks the potential for disaster. I witnessed during my career executives minimizing problems only to be overcome by them. In one case, a leader in hammer type printers company ridiculed the threat of the jet printer as being dirty and unable to print multiple copies. The growth of the jet printer industry followed. A missed opportunity!

Habit # 7. Executives stubbornly rely on what worked for them in the past. Changing times and changing situations often require a new set of answers and approaches. Talking about the great feats of the yesteryear is no antidote for pressing and tough issues. Getting trapped in a problem solving paradigm is akin to having blinders on.

Anyone of us can associate with at least one or more of the bad habits.

To know which one(s) apply to us makes us aware of the pothole in front of us. There are no perfect people but there are aware people. Awareness can facilitate clearer thinking and decision making. The most dangerous people inside an organization are those who do not know what they do not know. They are blind and ignorant at the same time.

Reflect on your own vulnerability. Manage it. Turn it into a positive. Have fun!

Work Place Democracy ... A Utopian Dream?

I remember well the late 1970's and the 1980's. The landscape was full of experiments ... Quality of Work Life (QWL), quality circles, autonomous groups, self-directed groups, you name it, organizations tried to outdo one another with these workplace experiments.

The search for the ideal organization and job design was fueled by the ever increasing success of the Japanese model which included higher worker participation. From Scandinavia, experiments in socio-technical job design, captured the imagination of HR practitioners. Management gurus all over the Western world promoted the notion that increased worker participation in the traditional functions of management such as selection, pay program design, and work organization would improve employee satisfaction and, as a consequence, productivity. Some Northern European countries went much further by imbedding the notion of worker participation in their labor laws, and they mandated the worker council -- including representatives of the employees in all strategic and operational decision making of the organization.

We have not heard much about this subject in the past ten years or so. Although the worker councils still exist, they are more or less relics of well intended social experiments. I have seen no empirical studies that show a significant benefit to the bottom line or to the job satisfaction level of employees.

THE MONDRAGON MODEL

There is one experiment that is worth noting here. The Mondragon Model. It is an experiment dating back to 1954. I first read about it in the book "The Organization of the Future" published by the Drucker Foundation, editors Frances Hesselbein, Marshal Goldsmith and Richard Beckhard. In chapter 11, Joel Barker summarizes the history, driving force, and success of this model. The setting is a poor region of Spain beset by high unemployment, poor education, and no positive outlook for the future. A young Jesuit priest by the name of Don Jose Maria Arizmendiarreta set out to change all of this. First by starting a vocational school and later embarking on an entrepreneurial experiment that created a mushrooming number cooperatives. The group by the early 1990's had a revenue volume of $ 2.6 billion and employed more than 21,000 people.

The principles of Mondragon included democracy, worker ownership, innovative financial management, pay equity, and self-funded retirement schemes.

I have not followed the success of this model in the latter days. However, I remain impressed to this day with the notion that worker democracy and ownership can be a powerful alternative to the stockholder model. I also admire the community building benefits the model created for the affected region.

I invite the reader to comment on this subject. At a time when jobs are scarce, communities are suffering from high unemployment and overall decline, the Mondragon Model can be a source of inspiration for job creation by stimulating communities in joint, collaborative initiatives.

Enjoy the ride on the learning curve!

Thinking Outside the Box

Thinking outside the box has become a cliche'. We use the expression often, but, I wonder, how well we know what it means. It is easy to get trapped into a pattern of thinking, to get stuck in a standard way of looking at things, to fit the mold, so to speak. We humans are easily lulled into a business as usual way of thinking and acting.

In the late 1980's I met Joel A. Barker in the lobby of Tektronix, in the State of Oregon, where we were both doing consulting projects. I asked Joel what type of consulting he did. He responded that he was in the paradigm consulting business. Afraid to admit that I had no idea what he was talking about, I kind of nodded and moved along. My curiosity drove me later to look into Joel's background. I learned that he was a futurist and the well-known author of the widely popular video "Discovering the Future". I immediately ordered a copy of the video. I have used this video often during the past 25 years to illustrate the power of paradigms. I have also relied on the video to examine my own patterns of thinking and my own limitations.

Joel teaches us, that a vision without action, is merely a dream. That action without vision just passes the time. And that vision with action can change the world. 

I saw and experienced the power of these words during my work with the CEO of Zain, Dr. Saad Al-Barrak. Recognized as a truly transformational leader, Dr. Al-Barrak had such a powerful vision that he was able to change the Arab world's view of its capability by creating one of the top telecom brands in the Middle East and Africa.

We all carry a bag full of paradigms with us. Unexamined, these paradigms limit our creativity and ability to think outside the box. Some of the paradigms are generational, others academic, cultural, geographical. Regardless of where they come from, unless we are able to make the necessary shifts at the appropriate time, we risk falling behind, of falling into the dustpan of obsolescence.

Let me list some well known paradigms:

JOB SECURITY. Depending on your age, you might have grown up thinking that if you join a good company, do good work, and behave loyally, that you will have a job for the rest of your working life. In the early 1990's we were shocked to find out that this way of thinking was no longer valid. We were admonished by our leaders that the only job security we will have comes from the quality of our skills. Some folks never got the message. Most got laid off as companies began to restructure or as companies began to move to maintain or enhance their competitive advantage.

MOBILITY. Again depending on your age, geographical location or culture, you were taught that you are born in a town, you go to school there, you marry a local person, you join the local workforce, and you stay close to your extended family. Guess what? As companies moved, you too had to consider moving. You too had to examine the notion of living elsewhere far away from close family members.

LEARN A TRADE. We assumed growing up that if we learned a trade or a profession that our future would be secure. That is what our forefathers told us. Unfortunately, some of the trades or professions have been on the decline or have disappeared all together as new technologies have made them obsolete or in lesser demand. The notion of continuous learning was not part of our box yet.

There are other paradigms that impede our success in more subtle ways. Take the role of HR. In most organizations HR is the butt of jokes, criticisms, and scorn. Why? Because HR seems to be stuck into an administrative, policy-driven role, acting more as a police force rather than a force for change. In the functional context, HR is often trapped into a one-size fits all mentality when it comes to pay schemes, learning strategies, and role definitions. More out-of-the box thinking is needed to align the approach we use to the needs of the organization we serve and the people who work there.

It is easy to say that HR is a business partner, but it is another thing to become one. In my view, business partnering is not a job title, but the description of how line management might see HR. Business partnering is more than doing what line management is asking us to do, it includes providing expert advice to solve complex organizational and human issues, and to implement the needed changes that make HR relevant and an integral part of the management process.

I welcome your thoughts! Good luck on your journey along the learning curve. There are many paradigm shifts that will be required of us in order to survive and prosper in the 21st century.

A question of priorities ....

It is not uncommon to find that most HR organizations spend more than 90% of their budget for learning and development in two directions: leadership development and personal development. Yet, if you ask CEOs what functions or people are most crucial to the success of the business, you will hear sales, manufacturing (product development & delivery), and finance, or people within these functions.

Learning and development responsibility for these three functions is often abdicated by HR to the respective function.

To my knowledge, functional heads are not experts in people or organization development but, regardless, they are left to their own devices. Some will find innovative ways to address their needs, but many will do nothing. In my view, this is a dangerous strategy or lack thereof.

I had the opportunity a few weeks ago to assist a newly formed consulting firm based in Bahrain. The issue was sales force development. Many need it but very few do it well. Yet, we continue to hear how important it is to have a well-trained sales organization. Our discussions revealed that sales training seminars per se were not enough, that a much more comprehensive development strategy was needed.

In the sales organization there are several distinct roles with different sets of competencies. To fully develop the whole organization, and not just one part (sales people), a different approach would be needed -- one that permitted to custom design development strategies that would fit individuals' as well as organizational needs. The approach we came up with was:

1. Assess each individual's development needs based on his/her role in the sales organization.

2. Compile an organization-wide composite view of the development needs.

3. Look for similarities and differences between the different roles.

4. Separate the strategy into two components: individual development plans and organization development plans.

5. Develop and implement pilot projects that would address both tracks.

6. Adjust the pilots based on participant and management evaluation.

7. Roll out the projects organization-wide.

8. Follow-up within 60-90 days to determine what worked, what did not and why, and take up any corrective actions.

10. Conduct a new assessment and measure improvements as well as unfinished business.

We then took this approach, coupled with appropriate diagnostic tools and overall learning strategies, to a number of prospective clients, nine to be specific.

The feedback was extremely positive. Several clients indicated that they had struggled for years in search of a comprehensive approach, but, to their chagrin, had not found one. They also all confessed to being inundated with many consultants promoting the merits of their workshops or seminars. In essence, training solutions looking for a problem. Off-the-shelf one size-fits-all approaches, so to speak.

While it is too early to determine how much impact this new approach have, one thing can be said now. HR has to revisit its priorities and better allocate its funds and energy to better address the core needs of the organization. Focusing just on leaders almost exclusively is an incomplete task. Spending money and energy on new age personal development initiatives is akin to polishing the brass when the ship might be taking on water or worst sinking.

Let me have your reactions to this topic. Enjoy the journey along the learning curve. We still have much to learn!

And I thought I was Sicilian ...

In a world characterized by prejudice, it is curious that we choose labels to set ourselves apart from our brothers and sisters. The US Census Bureau has added categories that go beyond the simplistic white, black, brown, yellow and red categories of yesterday. Why? Because as we continue to migrate across the globe, it is quite likely that we will mate with people from other racial and ethnic groups. We also must not overlook the fact that emigration is not new. People have been migrating from the very beginning. Modern transport has shorten the distance -- both in time and mileage.

Take, for example, the small island of Sicily where I was born. History teaches that it was visited by colonizers as early as 3,000 years B.C. One such group, the Sicani, came from the Iberian peninsula around 2,000 years B.C. They colonized primarily the Western part of the island. Another group, the Sikels, soon made its way into Sicily from Southern Italy. They settled primarily on the Eastern side. My hometown of Tusa was where the two groups faced one another across a small river. The Phoenicians are recognized as the founders of Palermo coming from the distant Levant. Soon the Greeks made their way into the island setting up their headquarters in South Eastern Sicily in the city of Syracuse, from where they launched expeditions and established settlements elsewhere in the island. Not to be overlooked, Carthagenians from North Africa (Tunisia) joined the fray. The Romans followed.

And all this happened before the birth of Christ.

Around the 9th century A.D. the Arabs conquered the island and ruled it for over 200 years. They in turn were pushed out by the Normans. King Frederic II from Germany followed and he moved the seat of the Holy Roman Empire to Sicily. It was the time of the Crusades and Sicily was the perfect battleship in the center of the Mediterranean Sea from which to launch missions toward Palestine. After Frederic's reign, the French had a short stay. They were not welcome and to this day Sicilians celebrate their rebellion immortalized in the great opera the Sicilian Vespers by Mascagni. The Spaniards were next, and they stayed for several centuries until the unification of Italy in 1865 when the Italians from the North led by Garibaldi came to liberate the island. In 1943 it was the Americans and Brits who came to wrestle the island from Nazi and Fascist control.

So what is the point of all this? I wanted to set the context for answering an interesting question. Who were my ancestors? I do not look like the typical Sicilian. I do not have dark and curly hair, my skin color is light but olive tinted. Over the years people have asked me if I was from Hungary, Colombia, Spain, Greece, and other more exotic places. So I took matters into my own hands and asked DNA Tribes to examine my DNA. The test results came within two weeks after I sent the samples in. So here we go:

1. The generic profile listed the 15 top markers inherited from my father on one side, and on the other from my mother.

2. The native population match showed the extent to which my markers matched others. A graphic clearly shows that my ancestors were primarily from the Iberian peninsula (Basque being the highest) followed by Spanish. Strong traces of Greek, Romanian, Turkish and Portuguese also were highlighted. To a less degree, traces of Venetian, French, and Israeli Arab were also present.

3. The global population match confirmed the findings above.

4. The high resolution world region profile confirmed my roots as being predominantly Mediterranean, Levantine, Aegean, Mesopotamian, Northwest Europe, and to a lesser degree from Eastern Europe, Arabia and India. A small trace of Finnish also appeared. No Australian, no Asian (other than Indian), no African from below the Sahara, no Native American.

So here you have it. Given the short history of Sicily I gave you at the top of this page, my strong Iberian roots can be traced to the Sicani who colonized the island a couple thousand years B.C., and to a lesser extent to the colonizers from the Aegean Sea and North Africa. I always suspected that on my mother's side many relatives resembled many faces i encountered during my stay in the Middle East.

We use many ethnic labels to set ourselves apart. The reality is that we are most if not all of the above. It has been said that there is much richness that comes from variety. I agree. In particular, I have always found myself at ease in the Iberian peninsula and the Middle East. I find the food in both areas superb and the culture fascinating. Most of all, I love people in general, regardless from where they might be coming.

In a world of conflict and tit for tat, we need to remind ourselves that what we might have in common, by far exceeds what might separate us.

What is your ancestry? Are you curious about it? Find out! Children will take a big lesson from this discovery.

Have fun in the journey along the learning curve.

Change, change, change everywhere

I have not posted a blog in several months. Too busy with travel, too distracted by the chaotic world in which we live. I have been watching with wonder the historic events of the past several months, I confess to having been engrossed in them, searching for meaning, and hoping for the best.

The amount and degree of change world-wide has been and continues to dominate the news, with the hope for a better future. I am specifically keen on commenting on the strategies of change in play and the theory behind them. I recall being exposed to these theories in the early 1970's. An interesting article by the well-known publisher University Associates was a great help in explaining the different kinds of strategies and their strengths and weaknesses. Let me see if I can elaborate.

The theory teaches us that there are basically three major types. Each has been named for a group that typically, but not exclusively, might use it. Each strategy follows a set of assumptions behind the decision to use it, the needs the strategy meets for its users, and of course, its strengths and weaknesses.

Let's start with the first group. This group includes strategies that are best classified as based in power and force. The strategies that fall into this group are: the Political, the Economic, the Military, and the Confrontation change strategies.

POLITICAL STRATEGY -- assumes that if you find and understand the power structure of those who are perceived to have influence over decision making, then the desired action will be achieved. The need here is for control and attention. The strength is that it is effective at getting decisions implemented. The problem is that people relying on this strategy find it difficult to maintain credibility if they experience a failure, and subject themselves to backlash from others with opposing views.

ECONOMIC STRATEGY -- assumes that change can be accomplished by acquiring or obtaining control over all forms of materials goods. An important ingredient is to include those who possess control of the resources. The strength is that as long as the resources are available the strategy is effective in getting decisions implemented. The problem, on the other hand is, that resources are not unlimited.

MILITARY STRATEGY -- assumes that change in behavior can be effected through the use of physical force. A critical component is the development of conditioning, agility, and knowledge of use of methods to enforce change. The strength is effective at keeping order. The weakness comes from the fact that coercion must be costantly maintained because relaxing of control will result in the change not being sustained. Also force tends to be met with force.

CONFRONTATION STRATEGY -- assumes that the use of nonviolent argument will force people to look at problems resulting in the desired change being made. To succeed, people must be able to deal with and use conflict. This strategy helps people release tension, vent anger, or argue for moral values. The strategy is good at getting people to look at issues they would rather avoid. The problem, on the other hand, is that it offers no solution, that those who use it typically lack the power, and also that the strategy creates a backlash.

The second group can be classified as rational-empirical. This approach to change assumes that people are guided by reason and will use rational problem-solving processes, including observation and collection of data, in determining change strategies.

ENGINEERING STRATEGY -- assumes that by changing the context e.g., physical layout, regulated or permitted interaction patterns and role descriptions that change will result in achieving the desired changes. This approach relies on technical skills and structural intervention. The strength is that top managers who have power to influence system-wide changes in structure can be effective on implementing changes. The problem is that people are not just tools and interchangeable resources. This approach can create major resistance to change and therefore decrease the probability of success.

The final group can be classified as normative-reeducative. The strategies used are based on the rationale that, by nature, people exhibit goal-seeking behavior. It also assumes that learning takes place as a result of the interaction process that occurs as people attempt to reach their goals while confronting the demands and resources of the environment.

ACADEMIC STRATEGY -- assumes that since people are rational, if you present them with facts, then people will make the necessary changes. People will listen to those who have knowledge about things of concern to them. This strategy meets the need that people have for autonomy. The strength is that it produces information that is made available to those considering change. It is good at pointing out problems. The problem is that since people are not involved in the process of developing a strategy, there is a lack of ownership of the findings from such studies. As a result, this strategy is weak at mobilizing support and it is time consuming.

FELLOWSHIP STRATEGY -- assumes that getting people to know and like one another will facilitate mutual influence and change, Participation in decision making is thus crucial. People have a need to belong, and this strategy meets that need. The strength rests on its commitment to the individual and giving dignity to the individual. It can get things started. However, conflict avoidance and inability to reach decisions contribute to a loss of direction. Lack of direction in turn can lead to less commitment.

BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE STRATEGY -- assumes that problems in today's world are so complex that they require a combination of or multiple approaches to solve them. Involvement can lead to increased commitment to and acceptance of the results. Here we see a need to integrate the emotional and rational parts of man. The strength is that it puts responsibility where knowledge resides. The problem, on the other hand, due to situational orientation and its eclectic nature, makes it difficult to explain and to understand the change.

It is important to note that no one strategy is better than another, Each strategy is based on different assumptions, and each has different strengths and weaknesses. These strategies are rarely used in their pure form. Often they are used in combination in accordance with the situation on hand.

So much for theory ... Now let's go to practice. Take a look at the major changes around us today. Can you link the type of strategy, its strengths and weaknesses? I think I can, and so can you. Let's quickly see the general application:

SYRIA -- change strategy: military crackdown (force) met by rebellion and casualties on both sides.

ITALY -- change strategy: economic and political met by confrontation (strikes, occupation, disobedience). Prime minister an ex-banker. Other ministers technocrats.

EGYPT -- change strategy: confrontation met by police repression, military intervention, finally elections

LYBIA -- change strategy: military crackdown (force) met by rebellion with casualties on both sides, sanctions (economic), transition

AFGHANISTAN -- change strategy: military (force) met by guerilla warfare, terrorism, disengagement to come

USA -- change strategy: political-economic met by sit-ins, occupations, stand-offs

GREECE -- change strategy: economic and political met by mass protests, urban warfare, destruction of property, change in cabinet of government. Prime minister an ex banker. Other ministers technocrats.

I can go on and so can you. Notice that neither of the prime ministers in Italy and Greece were elected by the people. What happened to representative government? Change in both countries was imposed by outsiders, bankers, bureaucrats in Brussels, other countries (Germany and France).

Fascinating subject. A great laboratory for understanding change and change processes. Enjoy the journey.