The Truth About Being an All-Star at Work

Does it matter how much money we make?

Yes. It does. We need to be able to pay bills, eat food, wear clothes, and live comfortably. We want to be able to go on vacation, and save for the future. But beyond these things, why do we care about the size of our pay cheques? To whom does it matter how much money we make?

In our jobs, there is a psychological contract that establishes a financial value for the tasks we perform. Do these things, and get paid this much money. This alone however, cannot motivate us to maximize our potential. There must be a strategy, and a bigger picture. In order to fully engage, to go all-in, our work environment must address extrinsic and intrinsic needs. In addition to the money that we require for basic survival, as mentioned above, we also have a drive to learn, grow, and improve. Now, you might be thinking, “that’s pretty obvious, Steve,” but in reality, there are many organizations that have no explicit strategy for comprehensive rewards.

Learning and development can occur as a latent result of regular task performance. When these things are planned though, the results are limitless. When a business strategy emphasizes intrinsic rewards, the employee perceives an investment by their organization. Subsequently, when the employee understands that their employer cares about their personal growth, they are likely to display commitment, and positive performance.

The money we make at work matters a great deal, to us, and our loved ones, who want us to be happy and secure. But, nothing beats the feeling we get when we acquire new skills, and achieve our goals. It’s really about the things we learn along the way, rather than the quantifiable results of our creations.   
 

How To Be Super Productive

I have never seen this online business journal before, but the question presented by the author is interesting nonetheless. Are you more productive when you work outside the office – at home, or a coffee shop? Sixty percent of respondents to a Microsoft survey suggested that they are more productive outside of the office, while only 40 percent of the surveyed group said that their employer had a policy that provided for flexible work arrangements.

I think we have to ask ourselves why we’re more productive outside of the office. While coworkers, emails, and new youtube videos can be distracting, there are things we can do at work to be more efficient.

1. Don’t let email run your day

Set a time each day to reply to emails. Easier said than done, as I see my blackberry flashing, or pop-ups on my computer screen when I get new emails. However, if you respond to emails as they arrive, you’ll spend your whole day putting out fires, rather than achieving your goals. Communicate this idea to clients and colleagues, letting them know that a phone call is best when an issue is urgent.

2. Do but don’t have an open door policy

Most people love a collaborative working environment. It is critical for good office morale to know that your colleagues are approachable. That said, it is important for staff teams to identify items that are appropriate for collaboration, and tasks that require individual initiative.

3. Be creative

We are motivated by things that address our need for growth and achievement. When we take time in our day to brainstorm and develop game changing ideas, our energy will flow to areas of our work that aren’t so exciting.

While an occasional change of scenery like Starbucks can be great for productivity, efficiency is possible in an office setting as well. By reflecting on our work habits, and making adjustments where necessary, it is totally possible to conquer our to-do lists every day.            

Federal Job Cuts Will Wound Surviving Employees Too

bit.ly/IobozI

A few thoughts on impending job elimination...

As a result of its new budget, the federal government is cutting 7000 jobs. Over the next three years, the government projects that 19200 jobs will be eliminated.

This is terrible news for the people who will lose their jobs. But what about the organizations and departments where these people work? The staff who remain after the government axe show will no doubt experience a survivor syndrome. Job performance will plummet as staff look over their shoulders for incoming pink slips.

Without a proper plan to motivate and communicate with employees who survive these job cuts, this money saving initiative by the federal government seems extremely short sighted.    

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.