Strong Companies Invest In Their People

Without breaking the bank!
http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2011/12/what_great_companies_know_abou.html

Deidre Campbell argues that there is a direct correlation between employee investment and the company balance sheet. I agree with her. I'm sure the results from her surveys are legitimate. But, I think that there are things an organization can do to achieve employee satisfaction, that don't cost money.

Communication
People want to feel valued. In addition to providing a good benefits package, organizations must involve employees in the business. To foster organizational commitment, communicate directly, rather than letting employees find out about important business decisions through the grape vine.

Feedback
To achieve optimal employee performance, provide clear expectations. Regular debriefing with staff lets them know that their work is important in the big picture of the organization. It is also an opportunity to receive input from staff. When employees feel that their job tasks are significant, they will display commitment to the organization.

Fostering Creativity
Every person has a desire to fulfill their potential. The ideal work environment is one where we are working to achieve this. One way to do this is to provide employees with opportunities to display skills that they don't normally use in their jobs. This has the potential to stimulate creativity, and generate new ideas for the organization.

Just a few thoughts I had while reading Campbell's article. Every organization should invest in their staff, perhaps focussing more on intrinsic needs, rather than extrinsic, material ones.

“People don’t buy what you do, they buy why you do it.”

So brilliant. This is the main idea of Simon Sinek’s TED talk. He argues that human beings are more likely to buy into something (an idea, product, corporate vision, etc), when we understand the reasoning behind it.

Experts in organizational behaviour, Hackman and Oldham, make a similar argument. Their Job Characteristics Model suggests that there are different factors that affect job satisfaction and organizational commitment. They identify a factor called task significance, which is a perception that the actions being completed are meaningful or impactful toward a bigger picture. When this is present, the employee is much more likely to feel a strong connection towards the organization. Without understanding the “why” behind a job task or corporate initiative though, and how it fits in to the overarching business strategy, there cannot be an associated significance.

Simon Sinek’s idea is unique because he goes beyond the logical. He suggests that our propensity towards choosing a business idea based on its reason for creation, is rooted in our physiology. This is huge. Managerial theory has always stressed the importance of communicating corporate vision. However, knowing that we have an inherent need to understand the reasons for business decisions before accepting them, creates an entirely new ballgame for employee relations and external marketing.  

CSR. Ethics or Optics?

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). It’s all the rage. Organizations around the world are implementing CSR programmess, where management and staff are getting involved in the communities in which they operate. These initiatives generally entail donations by the company to charities or fundraisers. In addition, many businesses are providing employees with paid time off in order to take part in local volunteer opportunities. These types of programmes can have a positive social and organizational impact, if they are implemented correctly.

I recently read an article in the HR Professional magazine that addressed the benefits of CSR programmes for employee engagement and retention. This piece asserted that there is an increasing trend toward social consciousness in the workplace. As such, businesses should demonstrate a commitment to community, and provide opportunities for employees to do so as well. Companies should use this strategy in order to strengthen employee dedication towards the organization. This approach makes sense, as behavioural experts like Clayton Alderfer argue that a person’s needs are the basis of their motivation. For example, when a person satisfies their need to connect to a community, the result is happiness and productivity.

Allowing employees to participate in community events is a great tool for retention. But this can’t be the reason for an organization to engage in practices that are socially responsible. Organizational strategy should be based in morality, and on the understanding that corporations have the ability to affect major social change. When initiated superficially, CSR programmes can have the opposite effect on employee engagement.

There are certain beverage companies that are focusing their CSR campaigns on helping women in developing countries to become product distributors. Perhaps their priority should be creating healthy drinks, and environmentally friendly packaging? Similarly, some well known athletic companies advertise their commitment to the use of sustainable materials, while utilizing child labour. Employees see through sketchy CSR programmes. Given our reliance on non-renewable resources, organizations should make sustainability part of the business plan. Long-term savings on energy usage and raw materials can be huge. Just as important, top talent will flock towards ethics rather than optics.          

The More The Merrier

Is diversity good for the workplace?

I recently came across an article in the Harvard Business Review about design thinking in the workplace. Author Peter Merholz, in his article Why Design Thinking Won’t Save You, explains that businesses have adopted this strategy in order to bring back innovation to a “left-brained, spreadsheet driven crowd.” The idea is to problem solve by thinking outside the box, expressing ideas through drawing, poem, music, etc. By approaching challenges from an unorthodox perspective, proponents of design thinking argue that organizations can reach new levels of success.

Merholz’s issue is not with design thinking, but with the way bloggers and business magazines have emphasized this strategy to the exclusion of others. While right-brain design thinking can foster the development of a winning idea, it is often the number crunching MBA types who will efficiently execute new initiatives. Merholz explains that in his change management firm, there are anthropologists, journalists, librarians, historians, and fine artists. His point is that the ideal working environment is one with a well-rounded inventory of skills, rather than a business that operates from only one particular perspective.

A diverse staff sounds like a great idea in theory, since a variety of personalities and backgrounds will likely incubate a multitude of ideas. But when it comes time to make decisions, attempting to synthesize different worldviews can create tension. To avoid this, managers should use a modified strategy of contingency, whereby every employee is managed a little differently. This is not to say that diversity necessitates a double standard in terms of workplace accountability. Rather, expectations for professionalism should be standardized, while mechanisms for feedback, motivation, and incentive should be customized.

Peter Merholz is spot-on with his contention that design thinking should not be emphasized unilaterally. When working with a diverse talent pool however, strategies for management must be tailored accordingly.        

The Thief of Time

How Does Procrastination Affect Us At Work?

“Even Nobel-winning economists procrastinate,” says James Surowieki, in an article about the things that cause us to put off today what we think could be done tomorrow. Surowieki looks at many different causative factors, from economic, philosophical, and psychological perspectives. Ultimately, he concludes that everyone procrastinates, for a variety of reasons.

One explanation that stands out for me is Thomas Schelling’s “divided self” theory. Schelling’s theory suggests that in moments of decision-making, there are different factions within us that vie for control. In general, one faction represents short-term interests, and another represents long-term interests. The challenge is to find an effective balance between our competing selves.

I think I checked Facebook 17 times when writing this blog. And who doesn’t “stumbleupon” something, or YouTube a flash mob every once in a while at work? Is this really a big deal?

If left unchecked, procrastinating at work can definitely be problematic. By avoiding what needs to be done, staff can create a last-minute culture in the workplace. In this type of atmosphere, where job assignments are rushed, errors and injuries are far more likely to occur.

What should a manager do if an employee says, “I work well under pressure” (i.e. “I procrastinate, but don’t worry, I’ll get my work done”)? The answer is accountability. When expectations for accuracy and professionalism are clearly expressed, there is less room for wasting time at work. Some organizations have gone so far as to block websites like Facebook and personal email sites. While intending to keep staff on task, this sort of policy has the potential to create an atmosphere of distrust. Instead, management should think outside the box. Why not create opportunities for structured work breaks? Meditation rooms and problem solving games can motivate productivity by encouraging creative thinking. The key is to determine the causes of procrastination in a particular organization, and then choose a strategy to ensure consistent optimal performance.     

Effective performance management is the way to identify procrastination in the work place. This is achieved through clear communication and frequent feedback. Then, when it comes time to isolate the causes of this problem behaviour, Surowieki’s article is a great initial resource. The remedy that is chosen should address the root of the issue. Whether the solution is a hard-line ban on perceived distractions or a creative approach, will be determined by the overarching strategy of the organization. A warehouse atmosphere might choose a restrictive solution, while a growing e-commerce firm would go with the latter. Ultimately, managers should resolve performance issues without haste, rather than falling victim to clock robbers.