Where Does Engagement "Live"?

I am very pleased to see interest in topics like employee engagement and employment branding gaining some momentum, even if it is just in dialogue.

I have to pay an homage to the people at BlessingWhite for their recent studies and research and Dr's Whitlark and Rhoads for their publication about the "Spillover" effect which provides concrete relationships and data; drawing a direct correlation between high engagement and key performance indicators like sustainability, productivity, and profitability. This is no longer "warm and fuzzy" stuff, but rather hard data.

I do continue to see that for all the dialogue I am still disappointed with the number of organizations and C level executives that are either ignoring this opportunity (some would say crisis) or paying lip service to it.

There are a couple of other things coming out about engagement that I have long believed that I am pleased to see gaining some traction as well:

• Defining engagement. This a a huge area. Engagement is not happiness or employee satisfaction. Much like compensation the lack of happiness or satisfaction can have a negative affect on engagement, but "happy" or "satisfied" employees are not necessarily engaged. The basic reason for that is that the work place may be providing an outlet for social relationships or other things that employees enjoy that affect those areas, but don't lead to additional productivity or discretionary effort. Measuring those other things doesn't necessarily yield engagement.
• Creating engagement. The other thing we are starting to recognize is that engagement is not an initiative or program it is a culture! To create and sustain an engaged workforce and long term employment brand you must create and sustain a culture.

I think that these "revelations" may be part of what is keeping many organizations from embracing an engagement strategy or employment brand- they aren't prepared to do the work.

The last thing I want to share today is my response to the opening question. In my opinion engagement and your brand live at the front line level of your organization. I am not saying that senior management support and role modeling aren't critical, but how many of your customers or employees interact regularly with C level management?

How many of us encounter Howard Schultz when we visit Starbucks or Steve Jobs at the Apple store?

My point is you must build engagement into your brand through your selection, hiring, training, and performance management and reward systems. I would go further and say that your front line managers are your greatest potential asset or weakness. In fact Whitlark and Rhoads are even more specific;

"One bad manager can pollute multiple levels of an organization, and poor managers bring down employee morale, which spills over into the engagement level of customers.”

My point being that your "engagement" or "branding" effort must be embraced as a culture change and you have to be willing to "de-recruit" employees especially managers who can not or will not make the transition. My experience has been validated by James L. Heskett, author of the book The Service-Profit Chain, who writes-

“… the hardest concept is the deployment of the culture change …which requires that organizations identify values, behaviors, and measures that help reinforce the service profit chain relationships. But it also requires actions. That is when managers are not managing by the values and cannot be admonished or retrained to do so (which rarely works), they have to go.”

So I guess what I am saying is that engagement is mutual commitment and while it is important to have brand champions in the C suite you will be most successful when you embed it into the fabric of your organization because engagement and your brand live on the "ground floor" where your employees interact with your customers. As my colleague Joseph Skursky so elegantly states, Hire Hard- Manage Easy. You will find it a better long term strategy.

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.....

Wrong Process = Wrong Results

I had an opportunity to read a literature review from last year that drew some pretty interesting conclusions not only for the U.S., but worldwide.
Steven Zaccaro, in his piece, Executive Talent Assessment and Selection: A Literature Review described a five step process.

• Defining executive candidate position requirements (technical skills)
• Delineating appropriate candidate attributes (cultural fit)
• Recruiting the candidate pool
• Assessing the candidate pool
• Making the final decision and "onboarding" the successful candidate

He goes on to say that the failure rate for executives is extraordinarily high and that failure to spend appropriate time on all of these elements is a probable cause.

He has some pretty good data to back him up. He cites the facts that CEO's hired after 1985 were 3 times more likely to be fired than those hired prior to that date and that the overall turnover rate for CEO's has from 6% in 1995 to 14% in 2002. In case your conclusion is so what, there is a direct correlation between CEO performance and organizational performance that has been documented by everyone from Jim Collins in Good to Great to the Department of Labor.

Another source describes the failure rate of new managers as exceeding 40% in the first 18 months. The costs of turnover is estimated at between two and five times annual salary in "hard" costs, so we aren't talking about a tempest in a teapot.

He shares some pretty interesting insights as to the causes of these failures as well. Succession planning in most organizations is frankly reactive. People don't like to consider and plan for their own departure. Another reason is that while many C level people are gifted business leaders and strategists; selection and placement are not core competencies for them. A study by Drucker shows them to have about a 33% success rate at choosing their own successor.

The literature indicates that when it comes down to it executive search committees tend to rely on their own "gut" instincts, select candidates who "mirror" their own attributes, and other human tendencies in making their selections. The least reliable indicator of success is an interview without other validating information. Similarly "track records" aren't always reliable unless the organization is facing similar challenges and an operating environment to the one the candidate faced. The skills sets at each level of management and leadership also become increasing complex- success as a middle manager or operational executive is not necessarily indicative of success at the higher level.

Last week I talked about the "leadership crisis" with something approaching 50% of middle managers rejecting providing "clarity", direction, and attending to morale issues as being their responsibility. When does the recognition that these responsibilities are part of their job occur if not built into the process? Correspondingly we know that highly engaged employees outperform their colleagues by a rate of 21% and that the "engagement" factor is synergistic to total organizational performance. The number one criteria for engagement is clarity.

Since many of our CEOs and other key executives come from "within" I don't think we can discount our investment in the process of their recruitment, selection, and development either.

So I guess it might be time to ask ourselves when we are ready to accept the idea that using the same process over and over and expecting a different result is a bit silly. Given the state of our economy, the costs of "presenteeism", and turnover shouldn't we consider making some changes?

The Right Team

As President elect Obama goes through the next few weeks he will have both the opportunity and the responsibility to do something very few of us ever get a chance to do- individually select the members of his "executive team" or cabinet.

I have had the opportunity to serve as an executive with several different organizations. With the exception of my own business, I have never had the opportunity to assemble my own "team" with a blank slate to start with. That is not to say that I have not hired new team members or everyone that I "inherited" was not a good fit or a keeper, still the prospect of making each decision is an intriguing one.

My colleague, Joseph Skursky, specializes in helping his clients select the right people. He calls his model- "Hire hard- Manage easy". The intent is clear. Think about not only the "technical" aspects of what you want in your team mates, but their values, commitment, and other attributes.
Matt "Boom" Daniel talks about his experiences as a Marine Corp aviator, and the importance of having each others "six" or looking out for each other and how important that is especially in combat situations.

In my previous blogs, monologues, and presentations I have talked about some other things that I think are cogent to this discussion. Specifically I would include the role of a leader in providing clarity and eliminating ambiguity and the concept that leadership is a gift from those who freely elect to follow your direction and "join up" with you to achieve commonly understood and accepted goals. That is the essence of Compliance to Commitment.

Some of the most interesting dialogue around President Obama's selections is his past relationship with some of his key appointments. Whether they have personal animus or "like" each other or not. He seems to be approaching his selections in a very pragmatic way- the qualifications of the person to do the job, and their commitment to the vision.
Sounds like the way a good executive would make those key decisions.

Many people I have talked to indicated a key decision point for them in deciding who to vote for in the presidential election was Senator McCain's selection of Governor Palin as his running mate. Some felt her so unqualified as to bring his judgement into question, others felt the decision was a concession to political constituencies whose values and positions they found unacceptable.
Do I think Senator McCain lost the election because of Governor Palin, no, but she was definitely a polarizing choice.

At the end of the day I hold leaders accountable for their choices of their "team". They either selected them, or chose to retain them. Either way the leader who complains about their "team" isn't much of a leader to me. Who is on our team is our responsibility.