When Will We Learn?

I have been following a number of interesting discussions on LinkedIn and other places about the issues surrounding employee recruiting, selection, and retention.

They range from the importance of the process to the idea that since we are in a recession and employees don't have anywhere to go we can focus on other more "important" business issues.

Interesting viewpoint. Studies show we are operating at 30% efficiency, employee job dissatisfaction is at an all time high, and to some it is a non-issue. I suspect they are not on the top 100 places to work list.

Another discussion I am following began to target some of what I believe to be the real issue- in many cases our hiring and selection processes are not well thought out and executed. They are ancillary rather than strategic.

That is the difference between truly high performing companies and those firmly "in the pack". The concepts of employee engagement and employment branding are coming into vogue. The idea that engagement and the resulting discretionary effort are built in to the foundation not added on later. A colleague shared with me "at Nike to work there you must be an athlete". They are clear about the JFHF3HCJD6FE culture and hire with it in mind. Other icons do the same.

If you are a senior executive how much time are you spending making sure that the people who are joining your organization or at least your team have the "right stuff", or like many organizations have you delegated this to your HR department? Here is a tip. Recruitment selection and retention of the best people is a management role, it doesn't "belong" to any one department. Top performing organizations have figured this out. It is a big part of why they are top performing organizations.

So if you are taking the time during this recession to focus on the "important" stuff and ignoring your people strategies it will be interesting to see how it works out for you.....

Doing "What Matters"

I had the opportunity to attend another brilliant presentation this last week by a man I admire a great deal, president emeritus of the University of Oregon, Dave Frohnmayer. Although President Frohnmayer may be best known for the 15 years he spent as university president he can also list Dean of the U of O school of law, Oregon Attorney General, state legislator, and Rhodes scholar. A true renaissance man.

He was speaking to a combined group of community leaders and "aspiring" leaders in the form of students from a local private university. Much of what he said resonated with me, but there were particular aspects of his presentation that really struck me.

One of the most interesting themes he discussed was our evolution as people, especially those of us who aspire to lead or manage others. He said that as we are young and we begin our careers we start with the question-
What do I want to do with my career?
We hear this question and discussion a lot from young people; how do I best manage my "career"?

The next evolution he describes is the place where we ask the question-
What do I find fulfilling or meaningful?
I know I have certainly spent some time pondering that question and I rather suspect that I am not alone.

The last question or stage was the challenge he put to those who lead-
What matters?
The point of this question is that we move beyond the "I" and begin to examine our contributions in the larger context of society and the world. It is an interesting point. Should we have people in leadership roles that haven't evolved to that place?

The other part of what he discussed particularly resonated with me; he encouraged everyone, but especially leaders to see themselves and others in terms of their whole personhood. Some of you know this is a familiar place for me.

He referred to people as diverse as Jung and Machiavelli as recognizing that we all carry a "shadow side" and that the most effective leaders recognize this in themselves and others. They don't try to deny it, they incorporate it in their leadership style and acknowledge it in others. They have people around them whom they trust and have the courage to point out to them when this "shadow" becomes a detriment rather than an asset or neutral. He also talked about how the recognition and "mastery" of your shadow elements is evolutionary and occurs over time.

When I first entered the work force like President Frohnmayer suggested I spent much of my time focusing on my "career". Now that I have had three or four "careers" I recognize that a career is a journey you to a certain extent look back on rather than plan.

I have found for me personally that the second and third questions have intertwined. I believe passionately that a different way of people relating to each other in organizational settings is better for the individual, the organization, and society in general. In my case that model is what we now call engagement or employment branding.

Those of you familiar with me also know about my fascination with "Whole People", my belief that this idea of partitioning people off in the "work self" and personal self is ineffective and kind of silly.

The last JFHF3HCJD6FE few years have been an interesting part of my personal journey so I found it somewhat validating to hear from someone I respect that perhaps I am not doing it "wrong" after all.

So what I would leave you with are two questions-

• Have you determined what matters to you?
• If you answer yes are you pursuing it, and if no do you have a plan to change that?

Look forward to hearing from you.....

What Happened to Us?

Almost 250 years ago the United States was founded in large part on the basis of two principles:
· The right of personal property; the ability through your own efforts and sweat to own property and build your own future.
· The right of personal competency; the right and responsibility for each person to develop their skill sets and to plan and execute their own future.
These concepts were radical in view of the feudalism that had ruled most of even the “civilized” world. Your destiny was defined not on who and where you were born, but rather what you chose to do with it.
In my white paper, A Social Contract for the New Millennium, I talked about how I feel that concepts like scientific management, pure capitalism, a move from an agrarian to an industrial society and other factors contributed to the degradation of these principles, but what I see lately troubles me even more.
In the 1940’s people like Deming talked about new approaches to total quality management, which interestingly enough began being referred to as Japanese management techniques. Immediately following World War Two the United States was the undisputed industrial power in the world. I will even go further and say that it was our industrial capacity that played a huge role in the defeat of the Axis as well as our military successes. We were the place that everyone came to study business and the home on entrepreneurialism. The productivity of American workers was some of the highest in the world.
I have heard the arguments that it was the unions and government socialism starting with FDR and followed up with other Democratic administrations that gutted it, but I don’t buy it.
Let’s look at some pretty unpleasant realities facing us right now:
· A study in the Journal of Business Strategy estimated employee turnover costs the U.S. economy $5 trillion annually.
· Another study by the American Health association says we lose $200 billion to “presenteeism, a phenomenon where people “show up”, but contribute at a marginal level because of their own or family health care issues, economic insecurity, or just plain dissatisfaction with their job.
· A 2008 Gallup Consulting study estimates the U.S economy as operating at a 30% rate of efficiency because of lack of employee “engagement”.
· A Conference Board study on employee satisfaction released last week reflects that 55% of Americans are dissatisfied at work and if you look at the under 25 demographic it grows to 64%!
· We have a second class health care delivery system.
I realize that the stock market is moving back up and that Wall Street is about to announce record bonuses, but these numbers scare the hell out of me. We are talking about things like a “jobless recovery” and while Wall Street has profited they aren’t sharing the wealth. What happened to the ingenuity and tenacity that put us at the top of the world’s economies?
There are a number of factors that contribute to where we are including:
· Globalization, if you haven’t gotten the email it is here to stay.
· A lack of solid leadership. Leadership is still defined in most organizations as a “nice to have” or an HR initiative rather than a strategic focus. In my opinion what is being taught in our top graduate schools is management, not leadership. They are related, but they are different.
· A lack of alignment. We are not aligning people’s contributions with business goals and objectives. That’s why we are at a 30% efficiency rate.
· Lack of a cogent customer service model. Most organizations have old fashioned customer service models; they aren’t engaging their customers anymore than they are engaging their employees. Anybody who experienced air travel recently can give me an amen to that.
· Changing expectations. In this regard I mean customers, employees, communities, etc.
The interesting thing is that if you look at the factors I have posited is how many of them come down to relationships and trust. A survey by Punk Rock HR gives a brief summary for the biggest reasons for the “newer generations” dissatisfaction:
· We read about 8 figure bonuses for executives and you want us to accept 3% salary increases as “market”.
· You told us (and our parents) that you would provide us with employer sponsored quality health care.
· You changed our retirement plans and tied them to the stock market so we could do “better”.
· You told us that moving the manufacturing base to Southeast Asia, China, and India was good for “business” and that we would create a “knowledge based” economy.
· Your response to the recession and 10% unemployment is that those of us who remain employed should be “grateful”.
I don’t know about you, but I can kind of see their point.
Maybe I am being overly simplistic, but doesn’t it seem like much of these issues are directly correlated to the relationship between employer and employed? I have thought so for thirty years! That is why I developed my model Moving from Compliance to Commitment. I have spent years refining and testing it. My premise is that when you give employees a chance to “join up” with you they will contribute at a higher level.
Turns out I was right. A Gallup Consulting study from 2008 showed that among other positive results companies with high engagement demonstrate:
· A turnover rate 51% lower than peer groups
· 27% lower absenteeism
· A per capita productivity rate 18% higher and
· 12% higher profitability
A different study from Rhoads and Whitlark and BlessingWhite drew the same conclusions. In fact they showed shareholder returns 13% higher and the productivity and profitability impacts of increasing engagement in environments like retail is nothing short of astounding.
Global research organization ISR’s research director, Patrick Kulesa, put it even more clearly-
“Our research continues to show that a well substantiated relationship exists between employee engagement- the extent to which employees are committed, believe in the value of the company, feel pride in working for their employer, and are motivated to go the extra mile- and business results”.
Now let me tell you what really bothers me. Less than 30% of U.S. businesses have any kind of a strategy for addressing these issues. To the best of my knowledge there is not a single government led initiative exploring it either. I read about a government initiative recently- in the U.K.!
It kind of reminds me of the early days of the total quality movement. Even though it was pioneered in the U.S. we largely ignored it because we didn’t find the need compelling. It was only when our products like automobiles, electronics, and others began to suffer did we look at root causes. We just gave big banking a trillion dollars and the average American isn’t seeing much benefit. Are we seeing a trend here?
The other issue for me is that this is not a “technical issue”. While I have a lot of respect for my colleagues who have black belts in Six Sigma issues like trust and respect are not going to be solved by “process improvements”. For those of us who see ourselves in leadership and management and the fields of organizational development and human resources management this represents a crisis and an opportunity to provide real leadership.
So let’s do a quick review. We have 10% unemployment, historically high employee dissatisfaction, and an underfunded second class health care system. We lose $5 trillion to turnover and another $200 billion to “presenteeism”. Maybe I am just confused, but am I the only person seeing some opportunities here? So what is it exactly we are waiting for…?

What Defines Us?

A little over 90 days ago the recruitment and selection process for the University of Oregon football team didn't look very good. The brand new coach started his season with a loss and one of his top players punched out a member of the opposing team on national television.
The press of course made sure that the "punch" got plenty of airtime.

Many begin denouncing the selection of the new coach. Over the next two weeks he lost two more starters to injuries. The season looked pretty grim. Then something interesting began to happen. The coach talked to the players about the incident and whether or not they wanted to let it define them. He made a decision to suspend the player from participating in the game, but not from being on the team. The player was told he would remain on scholarship and be allowed to practice, but not allowed to play. Several weeks later the coach indicated that if the player met certain academic and behavioral conditions he could be reinstated; which he was later in the season. The critics of course labeled this as the plan all along and denounced the coach and the program. Of course they have chosen to overlook the fact that the reinstated player saw his first playing time last night in the final regular game of his season. Some claim it was what the team needed to win so the coach sacrificed his integrity for the sake of the win.

I say really? The young man who stepped up and took his place set a national record for rushing yards as a freshman. There were two games; one we lost and one we won in overtime where the reinstated player didn't play. I think perhaps instead a coach made a decision to give a young man an opportunity to play for the last time in front of his home crowd.

The team is headed for the Rose Bowl for the first time in fifteen years. They are the undisputed champions of the PAC 10. The coach makes no apologies for his decisions.

A number of players stepped up to make this season happen. When I see how the team reacted to the opening loss, the loss of starters, the ability to play through the distractions, and the joy and appreciation from a young man whose coach decided to invest in him rather than throw him away I think that says much more about this team and this coach. Detractors will say we needed him to win- a record of 9-2 going into the game says otherwise.

The press will relish this opportunity to play the "punch" video over and over, just as they will torture Tiger Woods for the next few weeks. I think what defines you is not whether or not you make mistakes or errors in judgement, but where you go from there.

So I guess I would leave you with this question- what defines you? Is it your successes, your failures, or your "whole person"?

Yes, Virginia We Still Need Leaders!

I saw question on LinkedIn this week that really kind of caught me off guard. It was asking why we can't outsource management like other "non-core" functions.
That explains a lot to me about where we are in our current relationships between stakeholders and the financial crisis. One response to that question was that we already had outsourced management- their role is to represent the "owners" interest in interacting with customers.
Hmm, not much of a stakeholder viewpoint there.

I read a couple of excellent articles on BNET this week. The first was by Jeffrey Pfeffer, the professor and author from Stanford. He was talking about the real lessons we should be learning from the Detroit meltdown. He points out that indirectly the leadership of the auto industry has inferred that much of the issue can be laid at the feet of the UAW- that paying for health care and retirement benefits represents $1500 to $2000 per vehicle. He examined it a little deeper and said he believes the bigger issue is the $6000 per vehicle difference in revenue per vehicle between Detroit and Japan! He said he got those numbers from an industry report that is no longer published, because of resistance from the Big three.

Pfeffer says the real problem is one of desirability; American production vehicles are not as desirable so the big three has relied on incentives to create sales rather than design innovation, quality and other differentiators. He also talks about the the billions that GM and Chrysler paid out to appease shareholders. The Japanese reinvested in better equipment, better technology, and financial reserves. His indictment is that the people running Detroit (and Wall Street) have been obsessed with the numbers to the detriment of listening to customers and employees.

Steve Tobak talks about similar leadership failures in high technology and other industries- can you say AIG or the financial services sector? One of the things I have noticed over the last few months is a resounding silence around personal accountability from industry "leadership". He goes on to say we need to get it- we are not a global monopoly anymore. Customers have choices and will act on them.

We blame it on the economy, we blame it on the unions, and now we are itching to blame it on the Chinese for buying up our debt!

I have talked before about true engagement, your customers and your employees, and the resulting benefits. I have also discussed the issue Pfeffer focuses on ; we need real leadership, not management by the numbers. I am not suggesting that numbers aren't an important consideration, but I would submit if you focus on the core activities you need to create true engagement the numbers will follow.

The role of the leader is to create clarity for the entire organization, the role of management is to remove the ambiguity between the larger vision and the individual employee's job. If we have gotten to the stage where we truly believe that we can outsource those things we truly are in deep trouble.