Helping happy cows stay happy

I can’t vouch for the science behind the Happy Cow theory but their commercials do make me smile. Over the past couple of weeks there have been some great discussions around the benefits of employee mobility. Amy, Meg and Mark have waxed eloquent on the advantages of allowing an employee to move up via promotion or move on by finding a new role in the organization. Sometimes though, the employee is already in the right job and keeping them engaged and successful (read happy) means helping them grow where they are, to cultivate new skills within their current position.

Over the past year I’ve been struggling with the question of whether I’m still in the right role or even on the right career path. I’ve been working in the software industry for more than ten years now, but this wasn’t actually part of the plan. Life is funny that way. Most of us have a pretty good idea of what we want to do after we finish college, but then we hop on the job train and ten years and a whole lot of miles later we find ourselves in a career we didn’t even consider as undergraduates. That said I really do like the work I’m doing. I just feel like there’s something missing – that I still haven’t reached my full potential. So is it time for me to move on?

As I nearly always do when these sorts of questions creep into my thoughts, I asked my good friend and informal mentor to lunch. (I am so bad in this regard that an invitation to lunch now carries the implied message: “I’m having a career crisis!”) Anyway, we have lunch and, as usual, my friend patiently listens as I explain all of the reasons why I need to quit my job and find my true path in life. When I finished, I was confident she fully understood my problem and was now going to reach into her bag – the one labeled All the Answers – and give me the one that would solve my career crisis. But instead of an answer, she asked me a question: “Rather than quitting your job, have you thought about how you could grow your current role to include what you feel is missing”?

It was a really great question and one that I hadn’t considered. Rather than give up all the things I loved about my job, why not find ways to grow the job into something even more interesting and fulfilling. Too often employees find themselves in great, if imperfect, careers and so go hunting for something new. However, the truth is for most of us the perfect job simply doesn’t exist. But there are a great many jobs that are nearly perfect; so maybe the trick is to find an almost perfect job and see how we can improve it. Strong, effective managers will consistently cultivate a culture of mobility and encourage their employees to develop new skill sets to grow beyond their current roles; but there are times when the job itself needs to be grown to ensure the goals and aspirations of the employee can be fully realized.

How to not be a c-player

  Was reading the HBR article called A new game plan for C players and it got me thinking.  Of course the point of the article was how C-players hurt your business.  They are bad for morale of the rest of the team and as a good friend of mine says “they can do negative work” suggesting that having a c-player around can actually cause you to spend more time fixing their work then just doing it yourself right the first time.

What struck me though, was that while we all tend to agree that yes, c-players are bad for our teams and yes, we should be better about taking action, I don’t feel that we actually spend time doing self reflection to see if maybe we ourselves might be performing at less then our own A-game.

I was reminded while reading this, that the most critical thing to “get right” for ourselves and our teams is a well aligned role to the individual.  Keeping all examples to myself to avoid offending anyone, I can say with confidence, that if my job were to help people who are lost get out of the woods it is clear I would be the worst suited for it.  If nagging people about deadlines and commitments is the job, then I’m a much better fit.  Just ask my husband.

I have had the fortune (twice actually) of finding myself interviewing for a position in which the job description was a complete match for my experience.  In both cases, these jobs were not only rewarding for me personally, I managed to deliver products that had significant monetary benefit for the companies that hired me.  By all measures this was A-player work.  I was happy, I was challenged and the work I delivered benefited. 

 On the flip side, I have also managed to get myself stretched outside of my core competencies in such a way, that the results of my efforts were so inferior I could not even fire myself, but had to give myself the task of cleaning up the mess first.  While, this made for a great poster, and I did learn a lot, in retrospect I know I should have done a better job in recognizing the signs and doing something about them, as a lot of people got hurt as a result of my c-player work.

So what is my real message here?  First I’d encourage us each to realize that we are each capable of both A-player and C-player work.  For the majority of us fortunate enough to be considered “professionals”,  life is not a huxley-esque situation where you are pre-defined as an alpha or an epsilon. 

It is up to us to best determine 

• How do we quantify our talents
• How do we align our talents with the jobs we are given
• How do we push ourselves to give our best performance

Not just for the benefit of the company, but for the benefit of ourselves.  Like anything else, the best way to “not” be a c-player is to take an active role in your own performance. 

What do you have to lose?

Evolution of Engagement - Part II

Technology Enablement

At last the guilt of posting a part I and no part II has overwhelmed me.  And really, if you don’t count Christmas and New Year’s as holidays, then my goal of posting every major holiday still stands …

First, I want to point out that technology will never create engagement - no matter how fancy or fun the system.  Culture and process come first.  However, technology has evolved dramatically over the past few years to better support the natural needs of engagement as well as the changing expectations of engagement.

When meeting with organizations, I use the following chart to illustrate these concepts:

Humans have natural engagement needs.  They are things like gaining visibility to organizational motives and goals, learning & developing on a continuous basis, feeling part of a community, and so on.  These needs have not and will not change.  They’re basic.  However, the way we work has changed and will continue to evolve as the world continues to flatten, technologies evolve, and people (kids) adopt flatter approaches and new technologies earlier and quicker. 

The traditional methods of fulfilling engagement needs were focused on personal interactions - a company meeting, a team building event, classroom training, etc.  As organizations expanded globally and virtually (and transportation costs increased), such interactions became impractical. 

Meanwhile, we had the internet boom.  Internet tools quickly solved organizations’ needs to globalize, virtualize and save money.  Thus, the company meeting was moved to a webcast, the team building event became a distribution list, and learning went online.  The downside of such tools is that they are not truly meeting the needs of engagement.  They removed all of the good aspects of traditional tools, and kept only the bad - top-down, passive, and one size fits all.

That is changing.  Having recognized how individuals engage virtually and globally outside the workplace, along with the technologies available to them, organizations are equipping themselves with a new set of engagement tools.

Organizations that I speak with are leveraging interactive blogs as an open communication vehicle between executives and their staff.  They are also beginning to adopt corporate social networks to share strengths, interests, and goals for purposes of learning informally, finding opportunites, and completing projects.  Mark talks about the value of corporate social networks here.

Keep your fingers crossed for a part III … perhaps it will be a Valentine’s Day present to Meg.

If you love someone set them free

Yes, the topic today is “Talent Mobility”. 

But Meg, you say, Mark already covered this topic a few weeks ago.  Yes, I know he did, but I’ve made a career out of repeating what Mark has to say, I don’t see why I should stop doing that now that I have a blog goal of an entry every week.

So the question is, how do managers deal with the conflicting priorities of wanting to succeed against their own objectives vs. the goals of their team members for career development?  Especially when the next career progression for an individual is not an opportunity that the manager has on their team?   How does an HR group encourage the idea of individual career development if they have managers who are incented to hoard talent?

One of the first problems to address is how you incent your managers.  If their incentives are exclusively project based and not based on growing their people you are probably going to have limited success in driving the kind of employee engagement that we have been talking about here at TalentedApps.

Another key factor will be showing talent mobility as a core value.  Are those managers who develop and share talent known in your organization?  Does your organization see these managers as more valuable?  They should.  Managers who are able to develop and share talent are going to provide more long term value to your company than those managers who are only concerned about their own personal objectives.  In addition, those managers who are good at spreading talent across your organization are probably those managers who have a more effective network in the organization, certainly a more loyal one.

So, as you look to set your own objectives this January think about how putting opportunities for those who work for you ahead of opportunities for yourself.   Not only does the golden rule tell you to do this, but in the end you and your company will benefit more as a result. 

Also, consider thanking someone who was influential in your own career by helping you achieve your own career goals, especially when that involved being open to the idea of you working somewhere else if that was necessary.  To that end I would like to thank my last two bosses (you know who you are and are probably thrilled to have me mention you publicly) who have made personal sacrifices to help me grow professionally.  This, in addition to having to put up with me as an employee, certainly disserves a good karmic return.

Hey Santa, what I really want is…

 Well I haven’t completed my list yet, but I’m sure it’s not a vacuum.  Turns out though, that for some people a new vacuum was exactly what made the difference between feeling appreciated vs. taken advantage of as an employee.

Then it got me thinking.  Over the last year, I have heard several similar stories from friends, colleagues and family members suggesting that sometimes [most times] it’s the little items that really can get us down.  For some, it might be having an approved business-use PDA be rejected from higher up the expense approval chain, or maybe something as simple as having to pay for a favorite notepad used exclusively for work out of your own pocket.  Others, have noted that the removal of aspirin from the company first-aid kit rubbed them wrong and some have had to personally pay for frames for employee appreciation certificates. In most cases, it is not the cost of the item but the perceived lack of consideration for the individual, that presents the issue. 

In my own experience, I once worked for a company that was so seriously cheap that we felt compelled to bring our own office supplies from home for fear of not having things like sticky notes or paper.  In fact, it has only been this last year that I have given up on the practice of buying my own pens.  Oh and don’t get me started on the excellent decor of this startup, orange shag carpet and authentic 70’s wood paneling — sexy!

You can imagine how nice it was for me working out of the PeopleSoft HQ with its Potterybarn inspired decor, I even felt good about my interior cave of an office in such a nice facility.  Then, after the acquisition, I moved to Oracle HQ and was over the moon at the beautiful facilities.  A gym that is beyond description and a cafe with an unbelievable array of pastries and the wonderful smell of fresh bread and coffee in the morning.  Last week, and I am not making this up, there was even a holiday concerto in the lobby.  Why?  I’m not sure, and unfortunately couldn’t attend, but just the idea amazes me. 

So what is the point?  Why the post?  Some time back Jake mentioned the fact that building 300 is being remodeled.  And here is where we come back to my Christmas wish to Santa, that is about to be granted.  For me, one of the biggest things I want is some decent chairs. 

Now, my own office chair is not too bad, not anything to write home about but not an ergo or comfort issue.  Every other chair on the floors I frequent, however, are not so lucky.  The guest chairs in my office have had several near injuries of co-workers.  The conference room chairs really defy description.  I’ve come to think of the 2nd and 3rd floors of building 300 as the burial grounds of the chairs at Oracle, and I’m really looking forward to that issue being fixed. 

So, thanks Santa, for getting my letter and taking it seriously enough to schedule a refurbishment of this building, to include some decent chairs.  I truly hope that I make it until we all move back into the new floor before I take out any additional hostility on the chairs that are left.  I realize its not their fault that they died years ago and no one gave them a proper send-off. 

Here’s hoping that you and your co-workers are as well considered this holiday season because some times it really is the little things that make the big difference.

The value of teams

Back in school (go cats), it was all the rage in the business program to have the majority of our work be team-based.  The thinking being, that in a work environment, it is really more about teams then individuals. 

Lately, I’ve been reading and thinking about teams and Talent Management.  Of course, this has taken me all over the place a bit but I’ll do my best to make a point vs. forcing you all to wonder all over the place like I have been. 

One place I ended up was this article on emotional intelligence of teams.   To summarize, its not just important for individuals to have emotional intelligence but its also useful for teams (duh!). 

This article points to the HBR study that gives three contributing factors to high functioning teams.

Trust among members

A sense of group identity

A sense of group efficacy

Ok, so teams need to trust each other, define themselves in terms of the group and they must feel, that as a team, they have the ability to actually get something done.  Again, duh!

Turns out that for some cultures (and for some people) a team dynamic is not just a nice to have.  Thanks to Mark for pointing me to this article that suggests that in Asia the team might be the biggest factor in engagement (see, I told you I’d attempt to bring this to a point).

In talking to customers about teams, there are several head scratching elements that HR groups face in trying to build teams that work well together.  Why do some teams work well and others not?  Is it one person?  How do we predict which teams will succeed? and so on. 

In my mind, it is for teams that the value of the social network can be brought to real business benefit. I would like to predict that companies that learn to leverage their social networks as both a productivity tool for teams, and as a tool for proactively identifying team members, will find a new competitive advantage for their talent.  And, if the insight into Asia is accurate, there might be exponential benefit to this strategy as well.

Is Employee Engagement a managers job?

We’ve been talking about Employee Engagement for some time.  How do we engage people, why do we need to engage people – all that touchy/feely stuff that causes some of us to feel warm and fuzzy and others of us to hold back a gag reflex.

I’ve also been thinking about a Manager’s role in the overall Talent story for some time.  I think that to really do innovative things in Talent you not only need software and a HR vision but you really need solid line managers.  Initiatives like building, sharing and retaining talent fall down quickly with bad managers.  As the saying goes people join a company but they quit their manager.

I’ve read a few things lately that are food for thought for those of us who are managers.  Now I do not intend to suggest that we as individuals yield our own responsibility to define, nurture and grow our own careers but for those of us who are managers it can’t hurt to check in and see if we could be doing more.

Here is a quick article that talks about employee engagement and how “managing with a human touch” is a necessary ingredient for that to happen. 

I also recently read Three signs of a miserable job and found an interesting assertion on the responsibility of a manager.  This book focuses on how a manager is responsible to make the job of their employees something that they can feel positive about.  The most interesting thing that he points out is that the work is not really the most significant factor.  In other words, a movie star, a super model, a professional athlete can be less engaged in their job then a cashier a janitor or a factory worker.   His core points were that

1. People need to be recognized – he used the word Anonymity as the problem.  Managers need to engage with their teams as people first and employees second.  Yes, here is where the touchy/feely part comes in – if it makes you squirm as a manager then guess what?  Maybe you shouldn’t be in management.  People often confuse what is not legal to ask in an interview process with what they should not ask an employee.  So the question is: do you like your team?  Do you know them?  Do you care about them as people? Do you send them birthday gifts on Facebook? (ok that last part was a joke but you get the idea)
2. People need to be able to measure their work (Immeasurement)– If you can’t measure what you do or worse if you are measured on something that has no clear connection with what you do then you are probably less satisfied with your job.
3. People need to see a value in their contribution (Irrelevance)– People want/need to know that they make a difference in the lives of others with their contributions.  One very interesting point he raised is that managers are often not comfortable being clear to their teams that they need them. => So in case there is any doubt for my team – ohmygod do I need you guys

Evolution of Engagement – Part I

 

Science and Measurement

Lately, I’ve been doing a lot of thinking and talking about employee engagement - the growing recognition of its importance, organizational efforts to harness the competitive differentiator, and the emerging tools and technologies that can be leveraged to accelerate it.

 

I like this topic because for the first time in a long time I’m able to carry on a conversation about my work with friends and family “not in the industry.” For example, I was recently speaking with a friend of mine who runs her own graphic arts company. She quickly caught on to the topic and its importance despite the fact that she has never worked for anyone nor really had anyone work for her. She was able to think back to her one failed attempt at hiring - a summer intern who was engaged more in surfing and sleeping late than coming to work and serving clients.

It’s a universal topic that just makes sense to people and I’m thrilled that there is now science to back it up. Even better,In addition, leading organizations I speak to are doing something about it.

 

In my opinion, Deloitte really kicked off this trend toward fact-based engagement research. In their 2004 study, “Do you know where your talent is?” Deloitte brought attention to the fact that organizations were too focused on acquisition and retention and not focused enough on what really matters to employees – developing capabilities and working on meaningful initiatives. Organizations still (and should) care about acquisition and retention, but if they focus on what matters to people, they will attract and keep them. Attraction and retention are byproducts of engagement. Thus, if you measure and react to acquisition and retention metrics, it is too late – these are trailing indicators. Instead, organizations need to measure engagement levels; this will in turn allow them to predict and adjust not only turnover, but also top line performance indicators.

So, how does one measure engagement? There are a number of methodologies available to organizations. The general guideline is to pick a methodology and execute well as Mark mentions in his earlier post. I am impressed with Gallop’s Q12 methodology laid out in the book “12: The Elements of Great Managing.” Gallop conducted more than 10 million workplace interviews, creating a massive database of hard evidence. They have identified 12 precision statements that best connect employee engagement to business success.

The truly distinguishing thing about these measurements is what organizations are doing with them. Many of the leading organizations I speak with have found that it is not enough to conduct engagement surveys, track the results, and compare to industry standards (which most do). Most have found that it is the follow-up action which is most important. In many cases, organizations set up task forces that cross functional boundaries. Others make particular leaders accountable for improving engagement levels. In both execution strategies, the organization is setting measurable goals and people are held accountable.

Organizations are also trending toward making this information public – acknowledging weakness and exhibiting an effort to get better. This is a leadership strategy outlined by Marshall Goldsmith in his book “What Got You Here Won’t Get You There.” Though Goldsmith’s strategy is designed for individuals, I see the application to organizations as well. You may have been a good organization in the past, but to be a great organization in the future, you need to ask how you can do better and then show that you are doing better.