In the past year, employee
engagement has become more important (a recent poll estimated that roughly 85
percent of all workers are disengaged to some level – that should be
*extremely* troubling for businesses).
Through my experiences, I
came up with a number of “Rules of Business” – tips I consider to be business
truisms. Six of them are listed here. They’re not all entirely mine; but I’ve
made them mine, as much as possible.
The first is an individual
rule (one I try to follow, myself). In your communications – with employees,
co-workers, supervisors and even externally with customers – you will often
have to make a decision.
1. Is it better to be
“right” or to be “productive”?
We’ve all been there. We’ve
listened as someone speaks and we’ve heard them say something we *knew* was
incorrect. At that moment, we’ve had to decide – is it important to be “right”
(showcasing ourselves as the more knowledgeable party) or is the better option
to be “productive” and keep our mouth shut?
That sort of decision-making
can be vital in terms of personal growth. It’s a variant on the old “Pick your
battles” mantra; but there is a difference. It’s important to consider the way
you are perceived by your audience. A client could easily be turned off by
someone who continually corrects information in a meeting. Sometimes, the more
productive approach in many situations is to not say anything (as much as it
pains us) until we have a less-public forum.
Heck, even if your CEO says
something wrong in a meeting, he (or she) will probably be far more grateful if
you point it out in private after the fact, and then he can address it more
gracefully. Plus, it’s rare that anything said *immediately* becomes
unchangeable. There’s always a better way to handle something than to correct
or point something out in public (especially when an outcome is to diminish
someone else).
2. There is no such thing as
a “One Size Fits All” policy.
The Cincinnati Reds of the
mid-1970s were a dominant team, with four perennial All-Stars (Pete Rose, Tony
Perez, Johnny Bench, Joe Morgan). The manager, Sparky Anderson, realized his
best players deserved to be treated differently. Each year, in Spring Training,
he delivered a speech, where he let *everyone* know he had different rules for his star players.
I’m not endorsing that sort
of thinking – where companies line up everyone who works for them and state,
explicitly, some workers are going to be treated differently than others.
However, the inverse is also true. Too often, I’ve seen companies writing
employee handbooks that create a zero-tolerance policy with no exceptions. In
its zeal for creating an airtight, legally binding document, that spells out
every nuance of expected employee behavior, the company paints itself into a
corner and – worse– begins to chip away at employee morale.
At one company, employees
were forbidden from having any food at their desks. Why? Because, in the past,
some employees hadn’t been the most meticulous in cleaning things up; and there
had been issues. So, yes, that’s a great reason; but it’s insulting to those
who already have that level of conscientiousness. And, moreover, it breaks Rule
#3.
3. Treat people like adults;
hold them accountable as adults.
Talented employees – who
have graduated college and are looking to make a difference – really enjoy
being treated as adults.
At one job, I was making a
case for communicating the company’s sales numbers in the internal publication.
I heard the expected objections – “What if someone inadvertently shares the
information?” “Aren’t we giving them too much information?” I answered each
objection successfully. Then, someone asked, “What if someone shares the
information intentionally?” I immediately asked, “Why would you have someone
working at this company that you feared would do that?”
Is it a risk? Sure – but
anecdotal evidence greatly supports the concept that treating your workforce
like mature adults pays off far more than spoon-feeding them. A bigger risk is
seeing your best workers walk out the door.
4. Life is a bell curve (the
10-80-10 rule)
When you look at most data
(or human behavior), clusters begin to emerge. The vast majority tends to bunch
up in the middle.
When I moved into the world
of communications, I had the pleasure of attending a conference with Steve Crescenzo as a presenter, and he outlined his version of the 10-80-10 rule,
where (as he says), 10 percent of the people in your organization *love* you –
you can do no wrong in their eyes; they bleed the company colors. 10 percent
hate you, and they hate everything about you. They’re psychopaths, and they
hate their lives, their wives and their dogs. Nothing you can do will be good
enough for them. And, effectively, both camps are influencing that middle 80
percent (and, this is where a good communications director is vital!)
At my last company, I
created an employee engagement survey – the first of its kind for the company.
When you first administer a survey, unless something dramatic appears, those
results serve as benchmarks. As I analyzed the results, I noticed “employee
trust in senior leadership” qualified as dramatic.
I tell people to initially
expect 10 percent negative feedback, since this fits into the 10-80-10/bell
curve theory. When “trust in senior leadership” exceeds 40 percent negative,
there’s a definite problem. Thankfully, we do surveys to learn about these
problems, and – one year later, when we redid the survey, we reduced that
number by more than two-thirds.
5. Good managers tell the
“what” and “why” and listen for their workers to tell them the “how”
No one likes to be
micromanaged. The younger generation of workers is even less inclined to be
interested in that (remember, these newer GenY and Millennials – in many cases
– grew up with both parents working. They didn’t necessarily work harder than
their previous generations; but they certainly worked with less guidance.
You may be noticing a trend
in these “rules” – treat people like adults. Moreover, there’s a definite need
for managers to take a step back from looking to control everything. Hire good,
quality workers and reap the benefits.
At my last company, the CEO
had moved up to the role from an earlier position as director of sales. One
day, we were walking by the Sales “inbox” and he took out a few orders and
started looking them over. Wistfully, he said to me, “I used to do this every
day. I used to look at every order that came in. I don’t get to do that
anymore.” I replied, “Good! It’s not your job anymore! You’ve hired a great
director of sales; let her do her job, and you do the CEO’s job!”
6. Just because someone is
good at their job, doesn’t make them a manager
And, this certainly ties in
to the previous point. This is a pretty
common occurrence in America. You’ll have a front-line worker who is absolutely
phenomenal at their job (maybe something like data entry or order processing
... even a sales rep), and – eventually – they’ll want more – more pay, more
responsibility, some combination of both.
Now, they’re *great* at
their job – the tactical part of it – and the company doesn’t want to lose
them; but, unfortunately, they’ve already moved up the ladder as high as
possible in terms of salary bands. They’ve reached the top salary for whatever
position they’re in.
And, rather than raising the
salary band, most companies will do the worst possible thing: promote the
worker to a manager level.
Now – I’m breaking my own
rule. There *is* no one size fits all; and I don’t mean to generalize. On
occasion, some workers get promoted to a manager level and they thrive. But,
most of the time, the company hasn’t properly developed them to take on a managerial
role; and it’s even less likely the company has even evaluated the colleague to
determine if he or she is even suitable for a managerial role.
So, in the cases where it’s
not a success, what happens It’s a failure. The colleagues resent the new manager,
who loses their support. They are unable to strategize or lead or motivate, and
now the company has a choice – do they demote the worker back to his earlier
role (which is awful, obviously); or do they let the worker go – and, in doing
so, they’ve lost that phenomenal tactician they were so happy with, earlier.
I’m certainly not saying no
workers should ever be promoted – far from it. But, companies will do far
better by investing in their colleagues and developing their colleagues;
setting up personal development plans that start to get both the colleague
*and* the company, thinking about a career path; and *then* considering whether
to promote the colleague to a leadership level.
That is true engagement.
Obviously, none of these
tips can stave off the catastrophic impact of an economic recession, which is
what led to the universal abandonment of employee engagement in the mid-2000s.
But, as we continue to recover, a greater risk may be emerging – the exodus of
workers due to a lack of engagement.
True employee engagement is
far more strategic (and complex) than what I’ve outlined here; but these first
steps are a necessary foundation of beginning to create a more engaging
workplace.
