Employee Engagement

Last month I visited Brazil for the second time the past year. I met with four different consulting firms on behalf of a company on whose board I serve. One of the recurring themes during my visit was employee engagement. It is a hot topic and many world class consultancies such as Hewitt, Hay, Gallup, and my old alma mater Louis Allen Worldwide are scrambling to respond to this market interest.

It is my view that fostering employee engagement is the core work of HR functions. In today's fragile economy, competitive advantage is elusive since other firms can pretty much copy your products and emulate your service offerings. However, no one can really copy how your employees feel about your company. Research has shown that organizations with better employee engagement perform better on a number of critical measures, e.g., profitability, customer retention, etc. Engagement means going the extra mile to achieve company goals. It is the extra that affects the competitive advantage.

Research on employee engagement suggests that what drives it varies from company to company, so there are no universal remedies or across the board solutions. What drives it in your organization might be very different than what drives it elsewhere.

We have made many advances in measuring and analyzing employee engagement, but we are in the primitive stages when it comes to targeted interventions. Consultancies seem to know less about how to improve it than they know about measuring it.

The source of implementation wisdom comes from the day to day experience and know-how in job design, carefully architected reward systems, effective leadership practices, and human resources policies and programs. HR departments need to step up and lead with properly configured strategies and programs. You cannot improve employee engagement with training programs, communication blitzes, or focus groups. Sure, these might help but they alone will not sustain change and improvement. It is not the job of consultants to do this. Most consultants lack the knowledge in the fundamentals of human resources management. It is not their mantra. Most make money by being good diagnosticians, not treatment specialists.

Treating the intervening variables may give the illusion of progress, but addressing the causal variables is where the honey is, so to speak. The former is akin to treating the symptoms. Unfortunately, this is where most effort goes in, in my view.

What are your ideas and successes in this area? Are you willing to exchange them? Enjoy the journey along the learning curve.

Job Satisfaction and GDP

I recently traveled to the Middle East. As it is my custom, I always buy the latest issue of the "Economist". In the November 27, 2010 I read an intersting article in the finance and economics section entitled "The Joyless or the Jobless".

The article introduces the topic by discussing briefly the 2006 notion by professor Richard Layard from the London School of Economics arguing that unhappiness was a bigger social problem in Britain than unemployment. The professor went on to point out that more people were claiming incapacity benefits because of depression and other mental disorders than were on the dole (welfare).

With the advent of the economic crisis, it seems that this issue has fixed the problem. The jobless now outnumber the joyless -- there is nothing like a decline in GDP to make everyone aware how much this peculiar metric matters.

Professor Layard has long argued that GDP is overrated as a gauge of a country's well being. Once an economy reaches an income level of $ 15,000 per person, he goes on to point out, economic growth ceases to contribute to happiness. He cites, as an example, that although the average US income is more than Denmark's, there is no evidence that Americans are happier than the Danes. Professor Justin Wolfers and Betsey Stevenson from the Whaton School at the University of Pennsylvania question their colleague's conclusion since they were unable to find a significant statistical proof in the satisfaction test of the proposition.

Academics differ on the value of happiness in policy making. Their disagreement is rooted in the political orientation of those making it -- for or against.

The Declaration of Independence in America mentions happiness as the uneniable right of every person to pursue it, and not by the government to make it its policy. If people know what makes them happy, but do little to pursue it as a goal, there is nothing that the government can do about it.

Studies at Cornell University by professors Daniel Benjamin, Ori Heffetz and Alex Rees-Jones, and Miles Kimbal from the University of Michigan show that, in their study, 70% of respondents would be happier to earn less money and sleeping more. Likewise, almost 2/3 would be happier earning less money and living close to their friends, rather than more money in a city of strangers.

These findings suggest that money is not everything.

But ask people what they would choose as opposed to what would make them happy, and their answers may surprise us: 17% of those who would be happier sleeping more and earning less would still choose the higher paying job. 26% of those prizing short commutes over low rents would still opt for the cheaper home; and 22% of those who value closeness to friends more than higher pay would still move to where they can make more money.

Money may not buy happiness. But why take the chance?

Sobering thoughts about a subject of regular discourse amongst HR professionals. Don't you think?

Enjoy your journey along the learning curve.

Reflections on the Role Of HR

HR as a function has been searching for an identity for more than 50 years.

When it was called Personnel, senior management's expectations were more modest. The expectations were often expressed in functional terms: staffing, compensation, training and development, safety, employee relations, employee services, in some cases labor relations, and personnel research.

HR's effectiveness was assessed with cost measures e.g., cost per hire, cost per placement, cost per training hour, benefit costs per employee, revenue per emplyee, number of grievances, turnover rates, compa-ratios, accident frequency and severity, etc. It was a simpler world.

Once the name was changed, senior management's expectations became more demanding. Organization development, team building, flat structures, job design, coaching, and other soft topics emerged. New measures (additional) emerged: retention rates, engagement indices, climate surveys, culture surveys, team effectiveness, 360 assessment, etc. Not all HR practioners were prepared for the change.

Talk began about partnering with rather serving management. Lofty notions, but many wondered how, some still do.

But changing the name does not mean that we are changing anything. Senior management continues to be critical of the HR function and its contribution to the effective operation of the enterprise. A survey conducted by my consulting firm showed that 90% of the CEOs we contacted were dissatisfied with the quality of their HR function. In the same study, 90% of the CHROs were satisfied with the role they played in their organization.

Change comes from a new set of skills and preparation coupled with meaningful changes in policies and practices. It does not come by changing our job titles or what we call our department. Being a partner is not what you call yourself, rather it is how your partner interacts with you.

In my view, CEOs are responsible for the culture of the organization. HR can surely help, but ultimately, the tone and leadership come from the top. HR, on the other hand, is responsible for the organization's climate, and here there is much HR can do to influence the organization's climate through appropriate policies and practices that are consequential to the desired climate.

As a practitioner and head of HR, I saw my role as the champion of a climate that fostered engagement, that motivated staff to go the extra mile, and that made work a satisfying and rewarding experience.

I suggest the review of HR policies and practices with an eye for any perceived or actual barriers to the desired goal. Many of the barriers, I have found, are built by the administrative processes. Policies intended to reward people could become colossal dissatisfiers because of the many loops people have to go through to implement them. Streamlining these policies by taking out non-value added steps could smooth the decision making process.

There is a tendency in HR to do the same thing over and over expecting better results. Einstein suggested that this is insanity. I am sure you will agree.

There are practices in HR that do not add value and should be eliminated. There are policies intended to control when no control is really needed. There are policies that keep things moving and policies that slow or stop progress. I suggest that the latter be removed. There are policies that might be important for regulatory purposes but are quite useless from an operating point of view. These should be kept to the minimum required for compliance. There are policies that set limits on creativity and decision making. They should be liberalized, in my view.

HR is not a police department; in today's world, it might be better to encourage a culture of self-analysis, of periodic lessons learned critique, and a culture that encourage conversation rather than stifling openness and candor.

Realistic? I believe so! What is your take?

Building Positive Relationships in Business

Research has shown that communicating with clients, internal or external, accounts for 85 percent of the relationship. Yet most professionals spend only about 15 percent of their time developing the vital skills and abilities necessary to do so.

I was given a complimentary copy of a book by Lou Cassara entitled FROM SELLING TO SERVING -- THE ESSENCE OF CLIENT CREATION. Although I am no longer looking for clients, I found the book refreshing and thought provoking.

I have been told that relationship building is one of my strengths, but I am not satisfied with my own performance. I have much to learn and improve, but I do attribute any success I might have had over the years to skills with which I was blessed.

In the rest of this blog, I am both reflecting on my own experience as well as underlining key insights from the book.

Individuals and organizations spend enormous amount of money and time trying to find new clients and customers. However, when they are fortunate to do so, they tend to take the newly developed client/customer for granted.

I learned during my active career as an internal and external consultant that the best clients/customers I had were those I already had, not necessarily those who I might acquire. Why? They knew who I was, the work I had done, and the results I was able to contribute. They were not strangers to me, and I was no stranger to them.

So I devoted a good portion of my time and resources communicating with them ... finding out how they were doing, asking if there was anything they needed from me, probing for issues and problems for which I might be able to be a resource, and so on.

Looking back and reflecting on both the successes and failures in my relationship building efforts, I have concluded that relationships are vital to both our lives and careers.

Relationships, it has been said, are a reflection of the one we have with ourselves. If we are willing to look into ourselves and experience who we really are, we will be more effective in our relationships. If we do not think that we are good enough, competent enough, committed enough, and so on, our customers and clients will pick that up quickly.

I have been told, and I have come to believe, that people are a mirror of themselves and as such they will reflect back to us what they need to learn and change about themselves.

Now, not all relationships are created equal. Here are the three common types:

1. Relationships that require addressing the benefits and features of what we offer to one another -- on the superficial side, you might say.

2. Relationships that require more sustaining action and they call on us to understand the clients' motives and values that drive their behavior.

3. Relationships that are significant where we must understand others' emotional blue-print and core personality driving their behavior.

The type of relationship dictates the amount of time, energy, and commitment required to maintain a relationship that is reciprocally satisfying. However, in all cases, people look and expect to work with someone for whom they have a good feeling.

The more authentic we are, the better are our chances that people will have a good feeling about us. The more caring we are the better the chances are that people will care about us. The more you "get your stuff together", the higher the likelyhood that people will trust you.

When you have a few minutes alone, list the ten relationships that are important to you. Then using the descriptors above, rate each relationship by giving it a 1, 2 or 3. Examine the list again, change your ratings if you want, and look at the final ratings. Do you have work to do? Would you like to see a different rating?

Life Planning, Not Just Career Planning

Career planning is a recommended activity for all of us. It helps us focus on our aspirations and goals, and it provides us with the opportunity to plan our personal development.

The "sweet spot" we all aspire to is to reach a position that gives us a tremendous amount of satisfaction, intrinsically as well as extrincically. I have been both a student and practitioner of career planning during my entire professional life, and I can testify to its rewards.

But we do not live just to work, we also work to live. Careers, although important, are not our entire lives. We are involved in families, communities, churches/temples/mosques, hobbies, etc.

Focusing on life planning is focusing on the "whole person". Aligning career aspirations with our other personal goals, in my view, is crucial. In systems terms, the different parts of our lives can help us optimize its "whole". Focusing on just any one part, and ignoring any other part, is akin to sub-optimization.

Having a successful career and a miserable personal life is NOT success -- it is an empty success, a hollow success. Career success at the expense of family or community or our spiritual well being is indeed an empty and possibly painful victory.

There are those who claim that to have a successful career, we must make personal sacrifices. I am one to say "yes, but". It is not one versus the other. It is all of the above. That is not to say that there are no sacrifices involved; what I am suggesting is that any sacrifices must me justified by the overall gameplan.

Loneliness, emptiness, and guilt are sure signs that something went wrong. I have seen many folks during my own career that suffer from either one or the other. All three maladies eat away at our very soul. They leave us unfullfilled, incomplete. I must admit that at one time or another, I too got sidetracked, for which I paid a lot of emotional capital to right things up.

I advocate, in the strongest possible way, the escalation of the planning process to include our whole life, to involve our significant others in the process (spouses, children, partners). By involving significant others, we bring more balance to the planning process. Through participation, we also build ownership and support for any career decisions we are expected to make.

Life is worthwhile living when we make it so. Enjoy the trip along the learning curve.

Reflection On OD

A few months back I attended a conference on the New OD at the Labor College sponsored by NTL Institute. NTL is the birthplace of OD and is one of the most reputable venues for learning about OD. As a graduate intern, I had the privilege of attending a two-year program at NTL in the mid 1970's.

I have been interested for the past three years about a new approach to OD that I find refreshing and illuminating. My own practice was based on the diagnostic approach -- the original paradigm that saw the organization as a set of problems to be solved. Problem solving tends to focus on what is not working, and not what is already working. It is painfully slow and always asks people to look backward to yesterday's causes.

The new paradigm (Appreciative Inquiry) sees the organization more as a mystery to be embraced and appreciated. As such, the new approach uses a dialogic approach to development.

Human systems, I am taught, grow in the direction of what they presently ask questions about. Therefore, conversations about positive core strengths bring to life, give meaning and enable organization members and stakeholders to share best practices. The focus of the conversations can run the gamut from achievements to strategic opportunities, from organizational learning to core competencies, from leadership capabilities to social capital, from vision of positive futures to strategic advantage.

The essence of Appreciative Inquiry (AI) is a narrative process of positive change. It follows a 4-D cycle: Discovery (what gives life), Dream (what might be), Design (what should be the ideal), Desitiny (how to empower, lean, and adjsut/improvise). These phases lead to appreciating -- envisioning -- co-constructing -- sustaining.

The reasons why this approach to OD has not be adopted more widely, in my view, are many. One might be that its practitioners see it as the one and only approach to change, when we all know that it all depends. Another might be that the diagnostic approach could be better suited to some situations.

I learned early in my career that one sure way to fail as a practitioner is to be seduced by a methodology or to become its devote'. OD is not a religion, in my view. It is a body of knowledge that if effectively harnessed can bring about positive change in today's organizations.

As Steven Covey has taught us, let's start with the end in mind. And then, we need to ask ourselves what is the best way (more efficient, more effective or both) to develop a specific organization by considering its unique culture, its strategy, and its overall capabilities.

Wise OD practitioners ( and there are many)use more than one approach and they select the most appropriate one based on the circumstances on the ground, and not in the textbook.

I encourage you to read more about Appreciative Inquiry. It has a lot to offer.

Life is not just breathing, it is acting

I did not say that; the famous Rousseau said it many, many years ago. He said: "la vie c'est nest pas respirer, c'est agir." The title is my translation.

Recently I saw this message on an office wall. It reminded me of the great wisdom and legacy of this great Frenchman. As a high school student (classical track) in Italy, we were required to read the works of all the major European writers, and Rousseau certainly fit that category. We read him in his native language -- French -- not through a translation. I was fluent in French as a teenager but unfortunately over the years I have lost my fluency, although I can read French comfortably. As a youngman, I admired Rousseau in particular. He lived during a critical period of French history. We owe much to the French revolution and the great writers of that period. They had a profound influence on the US declaration of independence.

The message from Rousseau resonates well in the management arena. Here in Silicon Valley, where I have lived for the past 50 years, I have seen variations of Rousseau's admonition, perhaps, not as elegantly as his. The one that I am fond of is "keep moving! To stand still is to fall behind!" In other words, do not stand there, do something (positively).

During our career journey we will encounter many decision forks. Taking a decision has a great deal of risk; too many unknowns, not enough information, or not enough experience. But choosing we must. The cost of not acting is often greater than the cost of acting. I have seen folks freeze as the proverbial deer caught in the head-lights of an oncoming car. I have also seen people choose without thinking through the risks. In the former case, people get run over by the oncoming traffic; and in the latter case, they wind up in places they do not want to go. There are consequences in both cases; but they are not the same. We gain wisdom through lessons learned. With wisdom, we improve our periphery vision, we learn about hidden pot holes along the way.

I am biased toward action. This bias comes from my up-bringing. I was told that "without pain, there is no gain." It has been drummed into my head to "take the bull by the horns." I have been chastised when I stood there, and I did not do something. I heard many times that "the best defense is a good offence." I was told that it is OK to make mistakes, as long as they not of the fatal kind.

I am aware that others with a different up-bringing were exposed to a different regimen of advice and counsel. They might have been reared to not make any mistakes, and to avoid failure. As a result, I see many suffer from "analysis paralysis," trying in vain to avoid risks. It is not easy to let go of a regimen inculcated in us from our formative years, but trying we must.

If others can succeed, so can you. So, don't just breathe, act. Enjoy the journey along the learning curve. You have company; you are not alone.