When to Express Gratitude: Timing Matters

Many employees would love to hear more expressions of gratitude from their leaders.  They often indicate that they do not receive sufficient recognition for taking on challenging work and achieving  tough objectives. As Thanksgiving approaches, perhaps leaders might consider how to say thank you to team members who have engaged in an extraordinary effort in pursuit of a challenging goal. However, leaders would be well-served to not just think about how to say thank you, but when they do so.

New research by Professors Hooria Jazaieri and Olivia O'Neill indicates that the timing for expressions of gratitude matters a great deal. They write, "According to our research, however, thanking people after they engage in their tasks does not provoke the same resilience and perseverance as expressing gratitude before the task begins."

In a series of studies, these scholars found that demonstrating gratitude before an employee embarks on an unpleasant task can help "counteract some of the negative emotions associated with the task."  Moreover, they found that anticipatory expressions of gratitude can foster more persistence on the part of their employees as they encounter obstacles and difficulties.  Why do anticipatory acts of gratitude have more beneficial impact than after-the-fact thank you statements?  The scholars argue that articulating one's gratitude before employees embark on an unpleasant task "can help cultivate employees’ sense of purpose and value."   As a result, employees demonstrate more resilience when encountering setbacks and obstacles.  

Unhappy and Disengaged: What's Happening with American Workers?

Source: The Human Capital Hub

Vanessa Fuhrmans and Lindsay Ellis have penned a Wall Street Journal article titled, "Why Is Everyone So Unhappy at Work Right Now?"   They report:

Despite wage increases, more paid time off and greater control over where they work, the number of U.S. workers who say they are angry, stressed and disengaged is climbing, according to Gallup’s 2023 workplace report. Meanwhile, a BambooHR analysis of data from more than 57,000 workers shows job-satisfaction scores have fallen to their lowest point since early 2020, after a 10% drop this year alone.

Furhmans and Ellis explain that many companies increased wages amidst the tight labor market that emerged after the initial lockdowns eased.  Moreover, a large number of firms enhanced employee benefits.  For instance, many organizations offered improved mental health benefits and increased support for childcare.  The spending doesn't seem to be paying off.  The battle over remote work vs. returning to the office doesn't seem to fully explain the level of disenchantment either.   While some bemoan having to commute into the office again, others seem to have much less connection to their organizations because of remote work arrangements.

For me, the discussion in the article suggests that leaders need to rethink their approach to engaging and retaining employees. Compensation matters, but it simply isn't enough to drive engagement. Purpose matters, but that alone doesn't create highly committed and engaged employees either. I think leaders need to take a systemic approach. In so doing, they should recognize that pulling one or two levers alone will not have a significant positive impact. They need to think about their entire system. It would be helpful if leaders reconsidered the seminal work by Hackman and Oldham on job design. They described five factors that create a high level of intrinsic motivation, productivity, and commitment.

• Skill variety – People don't enjoy doing the same work day after day.  They want to tap into a variety of their skills and capabilities over time.   Some tasks must be completed each day, but other projects can and should vary.  
• Whole task  – Yes, it may seem that we can be more productive through division of labor.  However, employees find it more satisfying when they can see a job through from start to finish at times.  They don't want to just do a bit part without seeing the finished product.  I would add that these two first points suggest that it is important to provide interesting challenges to your employees. They will find a great deal of satisfaction from accomplishing a difficult task, provided that they have enough support in that effort.  Strive for what educators describe as desirable difficulty.  In other words, it can't be too easy, but if it's ovewhelmingly challenging, they will get frustrated quickly.  
• Task significance  – How important is the work being done?  Do employees recognize and understand the importance?  Here, organizations can do much more to show employees the impact that their work is having on people's lives.  I'm reminded of the CEO of a defense contractor explaining to me that she has her team film videos of soldiers thanking factory workers for making vehicles that keep them safe amidst the threat of roadside bombs and IEDs.   
• Autonomy – Give people some latitude regarding what to do and how to do it.  Sometimes, leaders have to direct people as to what to do.  However, they might still be able to find ways to provide choice regarding how to accomplish those tasks.  Find ways to ask workers often if they have better ideas as to how the work should be done.  
• Feedback – Make sure you recognize hard work and accomplishment in small ways on a day-to-day basis, not just in terms of pay and promotion increases that might come only once per year.  Provide constructive feedback so that people can course correct if they aren't meeting expectations.  Encourage workers to ask for help when they need it.  

It's not enough to pull one of these levers.  You need to work on ALL of them across the board.  Moreover, employees need to be part of the conversation about how to improve on these five fronts.  

How Gratitude Decreases Burnout at Work

 

As Thanksgiving approaches, we should consider the role that gratitude plays not only for our personal well-being, but for the engagement we create among our employees at work.   Amber Kersten and her colleagues have published a new paper in the Journal of Personnel Psychology titled, "Paying Gratitude Forward at Work."  The scholars studied more than 350 employees from companies in the Netherlands, Germany, Finland, Belgium, and Malta.  They found that work-related gratitude is associated with lower levels of exhaustion and disengagement.   In short, those employees who are more thankful and appreciative about elements of their worklife tend to have lower levels of burnout.  Moreover, they found that interpersonal helping behavior (i.e., do people go out of their way to assist others at work?) plays a crucial mediating role in this relationship.  In other words, "gratitude stimulates interpersonal helping behavior, thereby alleviating disengagement."  

Can leaders cultivate a culture of gratitude in their organizations?   Kersten and her co-authors point to a paper by Ryan Fehr and colleagues that recommend certain human resource initiatives that can cultivate employee gratitude.   First, Fehr and his co-authors suggest employee appreciation programs.  Second, they recommend that organizations consider facilitating contact between workers and those customers (internal and external) who benefit from the work that they have done.  In other words, help people see the impact that they are having, even when they don't always see the impact on a day-to-day basis.   Third, offering employees constructive developmental feedback and opportunities to advance their personal development also can enhance gratitude at work.   Together, these three interventions can create a culture of gratitude that goes beyond simply recognizing people for their efforts from time to time on an ad hoc basis.   

Coddling Employees vs. Fostering Learning & Improvement

Source: https://sabrinabakare.com/zone-of-discomfort

Alexandra Buell and Lindsay Ellis have written a startling Wall Street Journal article that is sure to receive a great deal of discussion this week.  I'm grateful that they have written this piece. The article is titled, "‘Feedback’ Is Now Too Harsh. The New Word Is Feedforward." The subtitle is: "More companies are ditching anxiety-inducing corporate lingo for what they see as gentler terms. Reviews become ‘connect’ sessions.'" Buell and Ellis write:

Employers around the country have good news for workers who dread chats about their performance: Feedback is on the way out.  Many companies, executive coaches and HR professionals are looking to erase the anxiety-inducing word from the corporate lexicon, and some are urging it be replaced by what they see as a gentler, more constructive word: “feedforward.”  Feedback too often leaves workers feeling defeated, weighed down by past actions instead of considering the next steps ahead, but “feedforward” encourages improvement and development, its proponents say... Companies are also banishing another negatively charged term: “review,” which they are replacing with “connect” sessions, coaching, self-reflection and opportunity discussions."

My initial reaction:  Are you kidding me?!?!?!   I certainly understand how employee reviews can be counterproductive at times.  Many managers struggle to provide evaluations and improvement recommendations effectively.  Employees sometimes become defensive, fail to acknowledge their own weaknesses, and do not heed the advice of their managers.  Yes, we have to improve the way we provide recognition, praise, and constructive criticism to employees.  There is no doubt about that.  I commend those experts in human resources and executive coaching who are working on these critical challenges.  However, there's a fine line between getting better at these important managerial processes and simply coddling employees.  It sure seems as though we might be crossing the line in some organizations.  Moreover, many employees may simply look at these changes in terminology as window dressing.  If they perceive the wording change as such, they may grow more cynical and skeptical about their leaders.  Trust and employee engagement may actually erode in those organizations.  In short, we may be doing more harm than good when we use terms such as "feedforward"or "opportunity sessions."  

Giving and receiving feedback induces anxiety and stress in many individuals.   We have all experienced it. However, our goal should not be to eliminate all discomfort in these difficult conversations. Some level of discomfort is critical to the self-reflection and learning process. We have to confront the truth, not run from it. Avoiding all discomfort should not be the goal.

I'm reminded of something my dissertation adviser and mentor, David Garvin, used to say to me as I worked on my thesis, developed my first case studies, and learned how to teach. He would quote Dr. Peter Carruthers of the Los Alamos National Laboratory:

“There’s a special tension to people who are constantly in the position of making new knowledge. You’re always out of equilibrium. When I was young, I was deeply troubled by this. Finally, I realized that if I understood too clearly what I was doing, where I was going, then I probably wasn’t working on anything very interesting.”

In short, David would remind me that discomfort was natural when receiving feedback. Being asked to make countless revisions in my work was frustrating at times. David would remind me of how far I had come thanks to the suggestions and recommendations of others. I'm thankful for all that constructive criticism early in my career. I benefited greatly from it.  I'm glad others strove to maximize my learning, rather than striving to minimize my discomfort.  

Lies, Lies, Lies: Hiring Managers and Job Candidates

Fortune's Paige McGlaufin and Joseph Abrams reported this week on some rather shocking survey results.  Resume Builder polled 1,600 hiring managers, and 36% of those individuals acknowledged they had lied to job candidates. McGlaufin and Abrams write, "Of hiring managers who admit to lying, around 75% say they lie during the interview, 52% in the job description, and 24% in the offer letter."  Moreover, many of these respondents indicated that they deceived candidates quite often.  Why do so many hiring managers lie?  The authors write,

"Some reasons hiring managers gave for lying include protecting sensitive company information, covering up negative company information, exaggerating benefits to attract job seekers, and generally making the job sound more attractive to find better candidates. What these managers falsify also varies—the most common lies are about the job’s responsibilities, growth and career development opportunities at the company, and company culture."

We have heard so much lately about the lack of trust and engagement among employees in many companies.  We've attributed these poor outcomes to a variety of leadership failures, but I've rarely read about how the problem may begin BEFORE the employee actually starts the job.  If someone is lied to during the hiring process, and then discovers the deception while on the job, they are highly likely to become disenchanted.  Many will simply quit.   In fact, the survey respondents indicated that roughly half of the employees who were deceived eventually quit the organization when they discovered the lies.

This article caused me to consider the incentive structure that these hiring managers likely face.  How are they measured and rewarded?  How does their ability to fill positions quickly affect their compensation and promotions?  By focusing on incentives, I'm not suggesting that we should excuse the unethical behavior.  However, we cannot simply hope to hire more trustworthy recruiters. The problem is not simply the ethics of certain individuals.  Given the widespread deception, we have to think systemically about the causes of the problem.  If we don't change the incentives, and the broader culture around recruiting, then the lies will likely continue.  

Do Leaders Know What Employees Really, Really Want?

Source: www.lovetoknow.com

Fortune's Phil Wahba has written an intriguing article titled, "Too many CEOs don’t know what their workers need. Employee ‘engagement’ surveys can make the problem even worse." Wahba starts by giving an interesting example from Starbucks. He points out that former CEO Howard Schultz often took great pride in the tuition assistance program offered to company employees. Wahba writes:

It turns out that for many Starbucks “partners,” as the company calls its employees, tuition help at an online university wasn’t that crucial. They’ve proven to be far more interested in prosaic matters such as flexible scheduling, work conditions, and more predictable hours—the kinds of issues that have a much greater short-term impact on their income and quality of life.

Wahba goes on to critique employee engagement surveys administered annually by many organizations.  He notes that many questions are fuzzy and unclear.  The responses do not necessarily provide clear direction as to how leaders should change policies or behaviors.  At times, companies present the data in ways that make things appear better than they actually are.  He gives the example of firms that sometimes lump "4" and "5" responses together when reporting the data.  Of course, a "4" might be quite different than a "5" response.  Moreover, while the overall mean might look good on a particular question, certain subsets of the employee population might be responding much more negatively.  Finally, leaders don't always close the loop by communicating clearly to employees how they are making changes based on the survey results.  Employees think to themselves, "Why are we doing this? Are they actually taking our views into consideration? Is it just a waste of time?"  

Wharton's Peter Capelli offers a simple suggestion: ask managers to talk to their reports! He tells Wahba, "You could have supervisors actually go talk to people. Employees are usually not shy about telling their direct boss what’s going on."  In short, there's no substitute for one-on-one communication in which managers listen to employee concerns and then circle back to address them.  No survey can replace those valuable conversations.  

Why the Decline in Labor Productivity?

Jane Thier reported last week for Fortune on the decline in labor productivity in the American economy.  She notes that the United States has experienced productivity declines for the past five quarters.  That hasn't happened since World War II.  Thier examines George Mason economist Tyler Cowen's commentary regarding the potential causes of this significant decline.   She notes that Cowen attributes much of the problem to "a serious crisis of morale" in the workplace.   I think there's no question that many employees are disengaged, and even disgruntled.  Organizations have been grappling with low engagement for years, but it does seem that the problem has become worse since the pandemic began.

Thier also writes that some experts have begun to question whether remote and hybrid work might be driving declines in labor productivity.   Cowen argues that more data are needed to draw definitive conclusions about the impact of remote work.   Fellow economist Gregory Daco of EY Parthenon argues that comments from various clients suggests that remote work might be causing a decline in productivity.  

Many companies reported high productivity of their employees during those early months of the pandemic.  I wonder, though, whether unique circumstances contributed to that efficiency boost, and if productivity might be falling as those conditions no longer hold.  Many employees and organizations rallied in those early days of the pandemic, working extremely hard to ensure that their firms would survive amidst a preciptious economic downturn.   Moreover, we all were stuck in our homes.  We had very little else to do, and so perhaps many were quite productive in those circumstances.  

Things have changed though.   Now, perhaps, we are seeing some of the limitations of remote work, and it may be having a deleterious impact.  It's not the popular thing to say these days.  People who try to argue for return to office often get pummeled by the press, and they potentially scare off talented employees who insist on working remotely.  Yet, the national productivity data should trouble us greatly.  We have to dig deeper into these data, and more rigorous empirical work must be done to understand the complete ramifications of remote/hybrid work.  

Publix & Wegman's: Engaged Employees, Happy Customers

 Last month, Beth Kowitt penned a good article for Fortune about the unique organizational culture and work practices at Publix and Wegman's.  She tries to explain why the companies are highly popular with customers and well-known as good places to work.  She points out that employee turnover is usually very high in the supermarket industry, and it has only gotten worse during the pandemic:

Most striking about the Publix and Wegmans streak is that supermarket jobs, already notoriously low paying, have become even more grueling over the past two years as workers put their lives at risk by showing up every day in the middle of a pandemic. Layer on the stress of dealing with disgruntled customers, and it’s clear why so many workers have reached a breaking point. In December 2021 some 786,000 retail employees quit—a record in an industry already plagued by high turnover. The sector has become the melting pot of all the big labor market issues of our time: minimum wage, the Great Resignation, a desire for remote work and flexibility, the childcare crisis.

Kowitt explains some of the things that Publix does differently.  She stresses that Publix has not responded to the Great Resignation by trying to replace humans with technology. Publix is privately held and still partially owned by the founding family, providing some protection from the usual pressures faced by publicly traded companies. The chain invests heavily in worker training so that the employees know the products and can converse with customers about those items.  The firm has a "promote from within" culture. Kowitt writes that, "Store managers have an average of 24 years at Publix, and 90% of them started out working on the floor." She also explains that don't tend to hire meatcutters from other chains. Instead, they bring on entry-level employees into the meat department and train them how to become meatcutters.  Finally, the employee equity plan provides real skin in the game for everyone and creates an incentive for people to build their career for the long term at the company.  Kowitt explains:

"With 230,000 employees, Publix is by far the largest worker-owned company in the U.S., and that has a lot to do with why people stick around. Employees who work at Publix for a year and at least 1,000 hours receive shares that can only be traded with the company. Just like at a startup where workers are given equity, the model entices people to stay. It’s money on top of their salaries (last year, Publix employees who qualified got the equivalent of 8% of their earnings). But Jones says Publix benefits, too. By having skin in the game, workers are invested in the company’s success. It’s an ownership structure that has turned many Publix associates into millionaires—the kind of lore that gets passed down."

As I read about Publix, I thought about one other key benefit of largely developing their managers from within the company, rather than hiring from the outside.  The managers have a much easier time empathizing with the front-line employees. Why?  They have been there!  They have worked at the checkout counters, bagged groceries, unloaded trucks, and stocked shelves.  Having done that work creates a genuine understanding of the obstacles and challenges front-line workers experience every day.  As companies think about the benefits of developing their talent in-house rather than constantly going outside to attract managers, they might consider the power of empathy and the inherent advantage of building empathy by having people promoted from the front lines to managerial positions.  

Employee Performance Depends, in part, on Leader Mindset

Source: Wikimedia

Katherine Muenks and her co-authors have published a fascinating article titled, "Does My Professor Think My Ability Can Change? Students’ Perceptions of Their STEM Professors’ Mindset Beliefs Predict Their Psychological Vulnerability, Engagement, and Performance in Class."  In my view, this paper about teaching and learning has very important implications for leadership, employee engagement, and employee productivity.   

The authors studied student perceptions about their professors' mindsets.  Did the instructor have a growth mindset (everyone can improve with the right effort, coaching, etc.) or a fixed mindset (individuals have a fixed level of ability in a particular discipline)?  Through a series of studies, the scholars show that student perceptions about the professor's mindset matters a great deal.  If students perceived that the faculty member believed in each person's ability to grow and develop his or her skills, then those students were more engaged. Moreover, they performed better in the class. The scholars go further though.  They write:

"Across all studies, we controlled for students’ personal mindset beliefs and found that, even while controlling for these personal beliefs, students’ perceptions of their professors’ mindset beliefs predicted their anticipated and experienced psychological vulnerability in class. In other words, students’ perceptions of what powerful people in the environment (e.g., their professors) believe about intelligence predict students’ psychological experiences and performance in that environment—regardless of what students themselves personally believe about intelligence...

Importantly, in Study 4, we were able to control for students’ general perceptions of how warm or competent their professor was. These analyses largely demonstrate that the associations of perceived professor mindset on students’ psychological experiences in class are not simply a function of how friendly or competent they perceive their professor to be."

In short, the professor's mindset mattered, even after controlling for the student's own mindset!  Moreover, the effect on student performance did not hinge on perceptions about the warmth or competence of the professor.  

What's the implication for business leaders?  I would argue that employees are also evaluating and judging their managers.  They are ascertaining whether that leader has a growth or a fixed mindset.  They will more engaged, more invested in their work and their own personal development, and more productive if their leaders display a growth mindset.   

Shadow Boards of Younger Employees

Source: Needpix.com

My former student, Cassidy Forsley, recently shared an interesting article on LinkedIn. It's a Harvard Business Review article titled, "Why You Should Create a 'Shadow Board' of Younger Employees." I enjoyed reading the article, as I've encountered companies employing such practices over the years. Each time, I've been impressed with the results. The article authors, Jennifer Jordan and Michael Sorell, describe how Prada and Gucci have used shadow boards successfully.  They write: 

A lot of companies struggle with two apparently unrelated problems: disengaged younger workers and a weak response to changing market conditions. A few companies have tackled both problems at the same time by creating a “shadow board” — a group of non-executive employees that works with senior executives on strategic initiatives. The purpose? To leverage the younger groups’ insights and to diversify the perspectives that executives are exposed to.

I think one benefit of a shadow board is that executives sometimes hear perspectives that their direct subordinates and middle managers are fearful of sharing with those in the C-suite.   A lack of psychological safety limits the views and information flowing to the top.   However, as one CEO joked to me, "the young employees are just stupid enough to tell me the truth!"  In other words, they aren't worried as much at times about the negative career repurcussions of sharing the unvarnished truth with top executives.   The shadow boards also enable companies to tap into the insights of younger consumers as well as spot social and technological trends.  Furthermore, as the authors argue, it increases employee engagement, thereby helping with talent retention.  

Now is the Time: What is Your Organization's Purpose?

Source:  Needpix

Over the past decade, we have seen more organizations come to the conclusion that they must become purpose-driven.  They have come to realize that an authentic higher purpose (that connects to business goals and objectives) can be motivating and inspiring, and it can advance efforts to develop a highly engaged and committed workforce.  I would argue that now is the time for organizations to think deeply about purpose, specifically as it relates to the current COVID-19 crisis.  What is your organization's role in helping our society cope with this crisis?   How can your firm help our society preserve and improve public health, promote economic recovery and protect jobs, insure that global supply chains remain functioning effectively, etc.?   Even if you already have a clearly articulated purpose, now may be the time to adjust that purpose to suit the specific situation in which we find ourselves.  Or perhaps more appropriately, to communicate how your purpose connects to and can contribute to addressing the crisis in which we find ourselves.  

If you are interested in this topic, I highly recommend an article from Harvard Business Review titled, "Creating a Purpose-Driven Organization" by Robert Quinn and Anjan Thakor, published two years ago.  They remind us that we have to take great care not to simply resort to cliches and platitudes.  We have to engage with our employees to discover that authentic higher purpose, and to get their buy-in as we align the organization with that new sense of mission.  Here's an excerpt:

At a global oil company, we once met with members of a task force asked by the CEO to work on defining the organization’s purpose. They handed us a document representing months of work; it articulated a purpose, a mission, and a set of values. We told them it had no power—their analysis and debate had produced only platitudes.

The members of the task force had used only their heads to invent a higher purpose intended to capture employees’ hearts. But you do not invent a higher purpose; it already exists. You can discover it through empathy—by feeling and understanding the deepest common needs of your workforce. That involves asking provocative questions, listening, and reflecting.

Four Questions Each Leader Should Ask

Bill Boebel, serial entrepreneur and CEO of Pingboard, has written a good column for Fast Company about the four questions each leader should ask themselves.  Boebel argues that leaders need to focus on these four questions in order to build a productive work environment for their team members.

1. DOES EVERY SINGLE EMPLOYEE UNDERSTAND WHERE THE COMPANY IS HEADING?

2. DO EMPLOYEES UNDERSTAND HOW THEIR WORK CONTRIBUTES TO LARGER OBJECTIVES?

3. DO MY EMPLOYEES FEEL VALUED?

4. AM I SETTING MY EMPLOYEES UP FOR A THRIVING FUTURE?

Source: Blue Diamond Gallery

Four terrific questions.  Here's a suggestion: Each leader should print these questions on a poster and put them up his or her office.  Stare at them every day.  Ask others to provide them regular evaluations of how well they are doing on these four issues.  

Making People Feel That They Count

Andrea Illy, CEO of Illy Coffee, talks in this short video about how important it is for people to feel that they "count" in an organization.

An Effective Fix for Bored, Disengaged Employees

Chief Learning Officer magazine reported this week on a study by Udemy about boredom and disengagement in the workplace.  The study found that 43% of respondents were bored at work.  80% believed learning new skills would enhance their boredom.  Bored workers were twice as likely to leave the firm.  Females and millennials were more likely than men and baby boomers to report that they were bored at work.  

Why these feelings on the part of so many workers?   People get bored at work for several reasons. First, they are stuck performing the same routine day after day.   People value some variety in their work.   Second, they have no autonomy.   They simply must follow the directives of others, with no ability to suggest and implement better ways to accomplish the organizations's goals and objectives.  Third, they don't understand the big picture.  These workers do not comprehend how their work is contributing to important organizational goals.  The sense of mission is simply not there.   Finally, they are not being challenged.  They are not being asked to learn new skills, take on difficult challenges, and develop personally.  

What's the fix?  Give workers a clear sense of mission.  Show them the importance of their work, how it fits into the bigger picture.  Provide them the autonomy to recommend and execute better ways of getting the work done.  Instill some variety into each person's workweek, so that they are not stuck in a dull routine.  Finally, provide them opportunities for learning and development, through both new challenges on the job or off-line training and education.  

Why People Leave Their Jobs

Bravetta Hassell of Chief Learning Officer magazine has a good article this month titled, "Employees Really Do Leave Managers.  Use L&D to Change That."  Here is an excerpt:

When it comes down to it, having free snacks in the employee break room, for example, isn’t as important as having a manager who appreciates his employees.  According to the report, “The Human Touch for Tech Talent: Employee Retention Could Be as Simple as ‘Thank You’,” employee responses to questions about what attracted them to a company and what kept them there say as much. The survey showed that 60 percent of employees said when analyzing a job offer, knowing whether staff feel appreciated by managers matters. Variables like how fast a person could move up in the company or how they’d be evaluated for raises were of lesser concern. Other highlights from the survey included:

• 33 percent of respondents want to know their manager always has their back compared to 22 percent of people who valued having a clearly defined career path, and 17 percent of respondents who found it important to receive regular performance feedback.
• 32 percent of respondents who looked back at ‘worst boss’ experiences said that person never gave credit where it was due.
• 28 percent of respondents to the same questions said that person rarely gave verbal praise or support.

What can learning and development professionals do about these findings?   According to Hassell, they can rethink the types of capabilities that they focus on during professional development  programs and initiatives.  These findings suggest a renewed emphasis on how to delegate effectively, how to recognize employees for their work, how to celebrate team successes, and how to maintain an open and ongoing dialogue with subordinates.  

Five Dimensions of Employee Engagement

The Sloan Management Review published a piece recently about the connection between employee engagement and profitability growth. V. Kumar and Anita Pansari conducted research on employee engagement in a wide range of companies.  They first set out to define engagement, given that many people look at the concept differently.   They settled on a definition that encompassed five dimensions of engagement:

We wanted to use our discussions with managers and a review of the literature to understand how employee attitudes and behaviors affected company performance. This led us to define employee engagement as “a multidimensional construct that comprises all of the different facets of the attitudes and behaviors of employees towards the organization.”7 The five dimensions of employee engagement are: employee satisfaction, employee identification, employee commitment, employee loyalty and employee performance.

The scholars used their "employee engagement scorecard" to measure engagement in 75 companies in 7 different countries.  One year later, they examined profitability growth at 30 of those firms in depth.  Here's their conclusion:

After controlling for other relevant factors including GDP level, marketing costs, the nature of the business and the type of goods, we found that the highest level of growth in profits (10% to 15%) occurred in the group of companies whose employees were highly engaged; the lowest level of growth in profits (0% to 1%) occurred in the group of companies whose employees were disengaged.

What Do Facebook's Best Managers Do?

Facebook's VP of People Lori Goler talked to Business Insider recently about an interesting study that the firm conducted. Facebook analyzed teams throughout the organization to determine the ones whose members reported the highest levels of employee engagement and satisfaction. They talked to members of these groups to find how what the team leaders were doing to create such high levels of engagement. Seven behaviors stood out. They should not shock you at all, but they do provide a nice summary of what good leaders do day after day as they work with their teams:

1. They care about their team members.

2. They provide opportunities for growth.

3. They set clear expectations and goals.

4. They give frequent, actionable feedback.

5. They provide helpful resources.

6. They hold their team accountable for success.

7. They recognize outstanding work.

The Impact of Inauthentic Behavior: How Does It Feel to be a Phony?

Kellogg Insights reports on the latest research by Francesca Gino, Maryam Kouchaki, and Adam Galinsky.   They examine the impact of inauthentic behavior - or "phoniness" to put it simply.  What happens we were act like phonies, perhaps to stay in the good graces of a boss at work?   These scholars demonstrate that inauthentic behavior actually makes us feel immoral.  Moreover, it makes us want to engage in some moral behavior (e.g. helping or serving others) to compensate for that bad feeling about ourselves.   The scholars suggest that low employee engagement in many workplaces may result, in part, from the fact that people feel immoral about phony behavior that they have engaged in at work.  What's the implication for business leaders.  Here's an excerpt from Kellogg Insights summarizing the scholars' conclusions:

For business leaders, these consequences are worth keeping in mind. If employee dissatisfaction is based on a violation of moral values—even at a subconscious level—it might be worth considering how authentic employees are allowed to be in their particular role. “It seems to be true that to act in accordance with one’s own self, emotions, and values is a fundamental aspect of well-being,” Kouchaki says. “Leaders might want to factor that in. The knowledge that inauthentic behavior has costs and that prosocial behavior”—like assisting or mentoring a colleague—“increases moral self-regard—this is something leaders might consider when designing their organizations.”

Should Your Firm Dump Its Employee Grading System?

The Wall Street Journal published an article this week titled "The Trouble with Grading Employees."  The article, authored by Rachel Feintzeig, focuses on some companies that have chosen to abolish their performance evaluation rating systems for employees.  Feintzeig also reports on some firms that have considered eliminating their rating systems, but were reluctant to abolish them.  Intel was one such firm.  Here's an excerpt that focuses on why rating systems are being questioned by companies such as Intel:

Intel Corp. has long rated and ranked its approximately 105,000 workers on a four-level scale, from “outstanding” to “improvement required.” Devra Johnson, a human-resources director at the chip maker, observed that ratings tended to deflate morale in a good chunk of the 70% of the company’s workforce that receives a “successful” rating each year—the second-lowest label.  “We’d call them the walking wounded,” she said.

I think the debate about ratings systems actually misses the point.  Companies should focus less on whether they use ratings and more on how they optimize performance overall.  To do so, firms should focus on four big ideas.  First, employees need to know where they stand.  That's the core principle that all performance evaluation systems must adhere to regardless of whether firms use a rating system or not.   In too many situations, employees simply do not understand how they are doing.   Second, differentiation is essential.  Not everyone is above average.  Even with ratings systems, some firms do not do enough to distinguish between high and low performers.  Others take rankings to an extreme.  Third, good performance management rests more on the informal modes of communication between manager and employee than on formal evaluation systems.  Communication between manager and employee must be frequent, open, and two-way.  Waiting for the formal review to take place is a recipe for disaster.  Finally, great companies create environments that foster intrinsic motivation.  They do not rely solely on the extrinsic rewards or punishments that come with formal evaluations. 

 

What do we want from our managers?

Gallup has released some interesting findings from a survey of 7,200 employees across a wide array of organizations.  Gallup has done some outstanding work in the past showing that many workers are not engaged or even actively disengaged at their jobs.  The lack of engagement often has much more to do with a bad boss than it does with other broader attributes of organizations. In this survey, Gallup's results help us understand what employees desire from their managers.  Here are three big takeaways:

1.  People want their managers to communicate very often with them... daily seems to be the desired frequency.   They also want their bosses to be approachable.  Engaged employees tend to be those who feel very comfortable asking their boss a question at any time.

2. Employees desire clear guidance regarding objectives and priorities.   They want to know: What should I be working on right now?   What's most important?

3.  People want everyone to be held accountable in a fair way.  Equal standards for all: that's the desired state.