When I know a person has a strong interest in employee engagement, I like to recommend Peter Block’s Community. If they are interested only on a superficial level, they will let me know by saying, “Well, that book is really about life outside the workplace and really is not relevant to business organizations.” Sometimes, it is best not to offer a path that leads someplace one does not really want to go.

Peter Block offers his readers a new way of thinking about community that is relevant to every aspect of life.  He talks about the weaving of social fabric that brings us together, physically but also communally in a more purposeful sense. 

What makes community building so complex is that it occurs in an infinite number of small steps, sometimes in quiet moments that we notice out of the corner of our eye. It calls for us to treat as important many things that we thought were incidental. An after-thought becomes the point; a comment made in passing defines who we are more than all that came before.

                                                              -Peter Block, Community, 2008, p.9 pb

The metaphor of weaving is apt. The movement is rhythmic, small, intricate and extended over a long period of time.  We learn to not be a slave to detail, but to allow detail to move us into the present via our senses. An athlete knows what it is to focus on the threads of a ball to respond from a sensory, kinesthetic mode. The artist knows what it is to focus on color, value, form, or line, instead of the whole.  In the workplace, we can see gesture, hear tone of voice, feel energy and we can pay attention to the smallest exchange in odd moments, in order to move from our heads, where we value positions and guard our stakes, into our senses, where we gain awareness of our surroundings.  We would do well to consider how the small exchange, over time, can weave a strong fabric of relationship, if we practice moving into the present via our sensory world. Sometimes we must lose our head to find our senses.

Various theories in psychology suggest that we make choices in life based on the perceived cost/benefit ratio of a particular situation and this is true of our relationships, whether at home or at work.  Is this relationship costing me more than I are getting back, emotionally, physically, or financially? Is it reciprocal? Am I getting back what I am putting in?

Of course we usually don’t think about this in an intentional way, but if we were to take a time out and examine our life relationships, it is the exact route we would take.

According to motivation theory, we are constantly adjusting our behaviors based on our calculation of a cost/benefit ratio, and a fixed reference point that determines how we rate our current lot.  We may compare ourselves with others who are similarly situated, or we may choose to compare ourselves with others in a much different realm. (Why we would do the latter has to do with other interesting psychological factors!)

So, transactional relationships refer to this baseline rate of exchange which is ongoing as we negotiate life turns and make choices based on cost/benefit ratios. But in some cases, and for reasons that are important to consider, we begin to think less about the transaction, and more about ways in which the relationship represents an aspect of who we are, the way we think and how it serves to fulfill a deeper sense of self.

Whether it is a car that we purchased that now represents our frugal, earth-friendly selves, or the company we joined that puts resources behind us and gives flight to our ideas, or the friend that overlooks our missteps, even when we lose our heads, we make life choices that move us beyond the transactional mode.  Once we cross over into an “engaged” mode, we do more than transact, we invest.  We bank our resources with someone or something because of a feeling or belief that is intangible but affirming just as if it was tangible.

The crux of the matter is why do we cross over from a transactional to a more engaged mode? Recently I gave a talk on employee engagement in the workplace, and for this reason I have been thinking about the meaning of the term.  It seems to me that while we may debate and discuss the definition of employee engagement, what really matters is what employees tell us! What, in fact, engages them?  And while there are some common denominators among organizations, no doubt, more important are the responses that point to what is distinct and unique. Only by intentionally asking, listening and doing, will an understanding of engagement emerge within a particular culture.

No doubt we are always in transactional relationships somewhere in our lives, but if we want to become more engaged, we might begin to think intentionally about allows us to be ourselves more fully and leads us to a deeper sense of living.

David McClelland’s early work in competency development led to large scale efforts in the 1990’s toward developing competency models for various employee groups. I was a part of that movement and worked with a number of organizations to develop competency models from the ground up to energize and engage employees around what is most critical for success. One of the underlying premises of competency modeling can be found in the now accepted adage that identifies the problem: we hire based on qualifications, we fire based on competencies. 

A person may have knowledge, aptitude and skill, but successful job performance requires a much broader range of characteristics, motives, traits and other aspects of self that are brought to bear in a job. The movement brought about many changes in the field of HR as professionals learned how to investigate what a person actually does rather than what they look like on paper or would do “hypothetically”.  Organization development professionals developed organic models to help organizations uncover what distinguished successful performance for that particular organization.

Today, competency modeling lends itself well to the field of management and leadership coaching. As organizations are faced with the need to re-direct resources and change course, leaders must be the key to guiding change. Middle managers are challenged with keeping employees engaged and positive in the workplace and must possess the necessary competencies to manage up as well as to manage down during this time of unprecedented change.

So, a focus on coaching is relevant and important today, and the added dimension of competency development will provide vital links between personal strengths and organization goals. Here is a brief overview of the particular way in which I have brought coaching and competency development together. I am excited by the possibilities and look forward to learning what other ideas are out there.

Create an individual competency profile

To begin the process, I use an assessment tool that is quick, easy to understand, and allows the employee to select competencies that are best self descriptors. The self profile does not provide a complete picture, but by all accounts in research, it is more reliable than observer profiles. It also reduces resistance that one ordinarily encounters when a supervisor or manager provides the sole source of data.

Provide coaching feedback

A coach will typically be given enough information to understand basic areas of development that are mutually understood to be a priority.  With a profile in hand, the coach can now begin to dialogue around competencies with the client using descriptors which are defined and lend themselves to shared understanding. The initial coaching session is ordinarily about gathering information from the client about what “fits” in the profile, and what does “not fit”. 

The same skills used in developing competency models can be applied over time with clients to build an understanding of how they actually behave in various situations and then looked at through the lens of the initial profile.  Eventually, additional feedback from other sources helps to shape a more realistic profile and deeper understanding of when a client might operate with a new set of competencies, and when he or she might have a tendency to fall back to a “default mode” of behavior.

Development of personal strategies

As soon as the client has a good understanding of how his or her actual behavior falls on the competency scales, and most importantly, the coach has gathered enough information to know which competencies are most critical for success for the client, the next step is to develop personal strategies. I like to remind clients that this is about expanding one’s professional repertoire and also bringing success strategies from life outside work, inside the workplace.  When a client talks about the exhilaration and confidence he feels while coaching his son’s softball team, I get him to talk about what he does to make the experience successful and challenge him to turn this into a strategy he can employ at work. I encourage clients to experiment, and remind them it is like action science, we test and measure as we go.

I have only scratched the surface here, but hope to generate more posts in the future about the ways in which coaching can bring great new rewards to your workplace, and with relatively modest investments.

You can find out more information about my approach here.

Not that it makes us feel any better, but according to the Towers Watson 2010 Global Workforce Study, we in the U.S. are not the only ones to be faced with an anxious, stressed out workforce.  According to the study findings, “From the global recession, to financial defaults, to changes in business models, both employers and employees are being forced to revisit some fundamental assumptions about their implicit and explicit ‘compact’ with one another.”

More than ever, events happening outside the workplace, such as financial woes and job losses for other family members, are impacting life inside the workplace.  We do not need to look far in the world around us to see how fear translates into anger, withdrawal and mistrust. Our workplaces are easy targets for misplaced fears and as a result leaders have an even greater challenge in getting people focused on organization goals.

Three Key strategies that you can employ now …

1. Focus on leadership coaching; start at the top and make sure your leaders have what they need to lead in these times. Assess competencies and give them strategies to build on their strengths, give them follow up with a coach or mentor, teach them the skills to coach others.
2. Embark on process improvement to keep employees engaged and actively involved in contributing to positive changes in the work environment. Give them a task/challenge that is urgent and important, ask them what they think is important about the work, what they would do differently and let them participate in setting goals and measuring progress around budget, quality, timeliness and customer service.
3. Recognize the need for encouragement and support; this is the time to reach out and build bridges and mend fences. Make a special effort to reach across the divide where acrimonious relationships have taken hold. Now is the time to think about bringing in motivational speakers or adopting wellness programs. One innovative program I recently learned about is mPRW10 which helps employees develop healthy habits with a 10 minute a day program.

The Towers Watson Study offers the firm’s insights about the unfolding employment relationship in this new age. The study cites the need for organizations to foster self-reliance in employees, align people’s work with what really matters to allow them to contribute more value, and strengthen agility and flexibility in structures, processes and styles of work.

But the bottom-line is that employees first need to experience a readiness to change and an awareness of why change is necessary.  When they see the importance and the urgency, as well as a willing leader, they will be more likely to take the necessary steps.

If the current state of our workforce is an indicator of how well equipped we are to respond to the difficult challenges of an economic downturn, then, we have some work to do.

The Conference Board recently reported that U.S. job satisfaction is at its lowest level since they began tracking two decades ago[i]. Talent Management magazine[ii] reports that research generally finds that 75 percent of employees in organizations are not engaged in their jobs, and of this group, some 15 to 20 percent are “so disconnected they work against the organization’s interests.” And this state of affairs is not confined to any particular group. According to TM, Research by Manfred F.R. Kets de Vries at INSEAD finds this disconnect in the executive suites as well.

And we are talking about people who actually have jobs! 

We know we are in trouble, but are we aware of how our management model impacts the ability of the organization to regroup, rebound and reconnect people to the core mission?  

Yesterday I participated in a webinar sponsored by Orgdyne (www.orgdyne.com) and led by Dean  Robb, PhD, of the Center for Corporate Renewal[iii]. The topic was organization renewal, or the way in which organizations can continue to build and renew through periods of difficult challenges. One of the key points of the presentation delineated the differences between linear and the cyclical models of growth which impacts the way management responds to challenges from the environment.

In a linear model, management envisions a straight path of growth. The model supports “capturing” and institutionalizing what works.  As the organization matures the focus shifts to preserving structures and processes to support a steady path forward. Unfortunately, this mental model is not only unrealistic, but has many hidden traps, one of which is that any deviations from this straight path caused by difficult challenges are viewed as threats and the typical management response is to hunker down and “protect the castle”.  

The cyclical model differs in that the path forward looks more like a series of loops that move the organization back and forth between performance plateaus and adaptive periods where performance dips to re-adjust and re-organize structures and processes to meet shifting demands. It resembles the natural flow of life where we encounter mini cycles of birth, death and rebirth in marriage, jobs and family relationships. We have our peaks, but also valleys in which, ideally, we discern the way forward.

You will know if your organization is working from a linear model because you will feel the tension from the “survivor” or “defender” mode.  As Dr. Robb says, the castle defends its position, erects walls, and this has the effect of disconnecting the organization from the challenges it must face. People are less engaged and connected when they are required to “freeze” their creative, innovative side to conform to a rigid structure imposed on them. Think of the strategy the Chinese used when fighting Ghenghis Khan. Rather than adapt new strategies to overcome a mighty foe, they were forced to build bigger and bigger walls and moats and each time Ghenghis cleverly found ways to penetrate them.

If your organization is working from a cyclical model, you will notice a sense of urgency and focus around task and purpose in order to spur the community to innovate, pull together, and give one’s best to navigate out of the woods. People are more engaged and connected because they are part of a community around which processes and structure are built.  Think of the classic movie Zulu, the account of the 1879 Battle of Rorke’s Drift, when 3000 Zulu descend on 119 Englishmen. Not only does every person in the community give his best, innovate and rise to meet the challenge, the final respect shown by the Zulus to the victorious English, as illustrated in the movie, confirms the wisdom of innovating and imagining new possibilities, instead of giving up. It also shines light on the courage and character of those who respect their enemy even in the face of defeat.

Whether it is our personal spheres, or our work spheres, once we identify the ways in which we impose linear models on our organizations, how do we begin to work from a more cyclical model?  ln the coming days, I will be writing about some of my experiences with using group process and management coaching to shift organization thinking. Supporting strategies include the development of competency models to expand personal repertoires, employee engagement tools to create feedback, and process improvement tools to connect people to their work. 

I am most interested to hear what works for others and hope we can learn from one another.

[ii] The Science of Engagement, Talent Management Magazine, February 2010, www.talentmgt.com

[iii] CtrForCorporateRenewal.com

Employee Engagement + Labor Relations

It is not unusual to hear managers say that employee engagement is important to their organization culture, and in the next breath offer a caveat – except for the bargaining unit. The sour tone of labor negotiations has either made management and labor want nothing to do with each other, or, the history of the relationship is simply viewed as “beyond hope”. 

In this newsletter, I will briefly look at the roots of the meaning of employee engagement and labor negotiations and propose that they, in fact, can and should intersect. Understanding how they interface within the organization can lead to meaningful and important changes in your management approach.

At root, “engagement” is about a relationship that is built on a germ of trust and respect.  Engagement has many shades of meaning, depending on the context. Even in war, we are “engaged”, but in every case, when we are engaged, we bring something of ourselves to the fore; we make a commitment, by word or deed. 

“Negotiation”, on the other hand, involves discussion intended to produce agreement, or a coming to terms. Negotiation also has multiple meanings. The word “negotiation” is from the Latin expression, “negotiatus”, past participle of negotiare which means “to carry on business”. When we negotiate, we attempt to dialogue, resolve disputes, produce an agreement, bargain for advantage and satisfy interests. 

Can we say, then, that engagement and negotiation are compatible terms? And by extension, that employee engagement and labor negotiations can intersect, or cross over in a meaningful way?

If we encourage a culture of employee engagement, can we also toe the hard line at the negotiation table? If we treat these two ideas as incompatible, and operate with two different sets of values, we are likely to produce an uneasy, uncomfortable work place.  And this can lead to dissatisfaction.

So it is important that we get this right. One way to do this is to build a common framework for these two types of engagement. But first, we should examine where re-construction is necessary. If we are going to build a common framework, we will need common ground.

Here are two sets of definitions that are specific to our discussion:

Employee Engagement[i]

• Measures of EE can be synonymous with measures of job satisfaction, including organizational commitment, psychological empowerment and job involvement. 
•  An engaged person is often described by some combination of the following words:
•  Enthusiastic, passionate, committed, willing to invest in the organization, pro-active, persistent, consistent, attentive, alert, inspired, proud, determined, strong and active.
• An engaged employee goes beyond what is typical or ordinarily expected and gives attention to a wider range of tasks than is typical or usual, and displays a positive emotional state directed toward the organization.[ii]

Labor Relations:

• At root, LR is the exchange of positions, demands or arguments on behalf of a group of employees. 
•  LR includes advocacy on behalf of a group to obtain the most favorable outcomes.
• Traditionally in LR the “adversarial” winner takes all; but more recently understood as “mutual gains” or mutual problem solving.[iii]
• Progressive LR models encompass creativity, dialogue and investment in personal relationships to extend mutual understanding of what is at stake.

 It appears from this set of definitions, that if employee engagement is the aim of an organization, it follows that some form of progressive model of labor negotiations will be essential if it is going to “cohabit” within the same workplace.  Both the union and the employer must look at the framework from which they currently operate, and achieve some understanding as to how that will need to change for mutual benefit.

If you have a traditional top down hierarchy in your organization, you are more likely to have a confrontational, adversarial relationship with your union in response to that environment. [iv]

This is true primarily because in a traditional framework, employees are dependent on their supervisors and managers to tell them what to do and solve their problems. The underlying assumption in the workplace is that employee interests are separate from that of management.

A different framework can be found in a model in which the workplace is viewed as an interdependent community, organized around a common purpose of providing a set of services or programs or products, to a set of stakeholders, with a distinct set of needs, economic and otherwise.[v]   If both management and labor perceive the benefits of working toward a common purpose, and are both willing to alter the prevailing assumption that labor and management lack common interests, then a labor-management partnership might be a viable option.

However, labor negotiations, typically, is not the place where mutual in-depth exploration of underlying problems and solutions will take place. The relationship at the table must reflect work that has gone on behind the scenes in some form of a labor management partnership. 

Within this new framework, the community must first be guided by a common purpose and a common set of values. This must include a recognition of and commitment to the needs of all stakeholders, internal and external. Labor and management must be seen as part of the same interrelated system. Learning and growth will propel and sustain a culture of employee engagement. A dynamic work environment will have feedback loops so that people know “how they are doing” and will be able to measure progress. Creative energy will be released through collaborative work on problem-solving. 

Finally, the rules, boundaries and parameters of the labor negotiation process must be clearly communicated and perceived as fair, even if separate and apart from the normal day to day interactions. In this context, values do not need to be altered, even if the rules have changed and even if it requires being “tough” or toeing the hard line. Bargaining is another aspect of the engagement relationship, and if each side feels a sense of urgency to resolve matters for the whole of the community, the adversarial spirit will be less likely to arise. On the other hand, trust and respect do not exclude being tough. The hard work of negotiation will not be the center point of management labor relationship, but rather, the continuation of sustained efforts to achieve meaningful results.

[ii] In “A Historical Perspective of Employee Engagement: An Emerging Definition”, Michael Bradley Shuck and Karen K. Wollard, Oct 2009

[iii] Getting to Yes, Roger Fisher and William Ury, 1981, Revised 1991.

[iv] Bodine, Neil. “Rethinking the Workplace”. Center for Collaborative Solutions. www.CCSCenter.org

[v] ibid

One example of what can happen when employees, union and non-union, and management work together, can be found in Montgomery Ohio, a small city not far from Cincinnati.  Several years ago the City implemented a Health Care Committee that relies upon labor, union and non-union, and management to work together to guide the city health care policy and program. Recently I spent some time talking with Wayne Davis, the Assistant City Manager, about their program.

[Note: The Center for State and Local Government published a case study on the City of Montgomery Ohio, titled Employee Leadership in Health Insurance and Wellness Programs.  You can find that link here.

 The goal of the committee was to

• represent employee health care concerns,
• negotiate favorable rates and coverages with insurance providers,
• provide cost effective and comprehensive coverage for the City’s taxpayers and the employees, and
• communicate with work units about key health care issues.

The results have been

• A decline in sick leave usage,
• Containment of health care premiums (they have experienced 1/3 of the average premium rate increases in the Cincinnati region), and
•  drop in average annual medical claims.

The City of Montgomery has successfully developed a culture of employee engagement that works well with both their union and non-union employees. Early on management recognized the need to make deep structural changes in its organization, and worked with the Commonwealth Centers for High Performance Organizations to develop creative paths to a new way of working together in an environment steeped in local government politics and traditions.

The union environment here consists of the FOP (Fraternal Order of Police), the IAFF (International Association of Firefighters) and AFSCME (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees). As Wayne puts it, “everyone has skin in the game” meaning everyone has something at stake, and gains and losses are felt by all. The City has spent significant time (over 7 years) and energy working on building this culture which values emotional intelligence, relationship building and keeps the organization vision focused on high performance.

Wayne explains that although it is not easy to alter values within an established hierarchical system, they were able to realize success by essentially creating a parallel organization within the organization, represented by the committee structure, where a different set of rules and values flourishes. In this alternative “team” structure, manifest in the health care committee, title and rank don’t mean anything, and the normal rules governing reporting relationships are suspended in the interest of participation and contribution by everyone on the committee.

When engaged in the team, the focus is on working together to complete a task while sharing commitment to values. He notes that the “values” question is raised whenever needed to keep the team focused. For example, every idea is scrutinized for its benefit to the whole organization, not just one part, and the team holds itself responsible for not just coming up with an idea, but creating a realistic plan for what it would take to make it happen. Although consensus building is valued, the team will base outcomes on majority rule when necessary.

The team is made up of five people, one from each of the following groups:

1. Public Works
2. Fire
3. Police
4. Non-union, non-management employees
5. Management (appointed by City Manager)

The team is given parameters to work within and has the authority to create recommendations that are then carried to City Council. Although the City Manager or the Council has the authority to reject these, they have not because over time the team has earned a reputation for building value and also saving the City money.

One of the significant steps along the way involved educating the team about the budget so that decisions could be based on meaningful data. This also raised the level of accountability for all involved to produce improved outcomes.

Interesting, and an important lesson from this case study, is that in the beginning, Wayne modeled the role of facilitator and led the agenda setting process, but over time, as responsibilities were delegated to various members, the team become more involved in the agenda setting. So, the transfer of skills allowed the team to function with shared leadership. A key component of successful teams is the recognition of individual skills and learning from group members, as in this case, where the whole team became skilled at facilitating topics, setting goals and creating a plan for implementation.

Some additional areas of interest: each team member attends training twice a year to learn new skills and knowledge.  They meet once a month, and are all active in gathering feedback through surveys or informal interviews.  One important role of the committee is to keep people informed and presentations are prepared and delivered by a minimum of three members of the committee to various parts of the organization. Another skill that has emerged from the committee involves drafting legislation for Council. This has allowed the City Manager to step back from the direct ownership of the product  and produced a greater degree of acceptance by the organization.

Overall, management has not allowed what has always been to dictate what might be, and has remained committed to the effort, despite challenges and naysayers. When asked about the labor contracts, Wayne indicated that the contracts contain language that effectively supports labor participation in the committee.  He did not seem concerned about abridging management rights or indicate that this represented any great concession on the part of labor or management.  In particular, I was impressed by his final thoughts. He said with respect to the union, they value discussing things as adults, and each side being heard.

Friends Consult

When dogs bite and bees sting, we bring to mind our favorite things, but when things get stuck, or stale, what we need are a few good questions to evoke the spirit of engagement.

Over the years of working with people, I have found a few questions to be nearly fool proof.  While the goal is to get something going, to move in a new direction, or to clarify, the point is to engage and to encourage others to bring more of their self to the matter at hand. Whether we are managing or consulting, we intend to put an idea into motion with the participation of others. For that, we need to energize others in both heart and mind.

So here goes, these are a few of my favorite questions, just in time for holiday gatherings. May your holidays abound with good cheer and meaningful conversation around the table. 

1.            Tell me about a time when….

2.            What does it look like when [that] is happening?

3.            Would you say things are better, worse, or about the same?

4.            What is the most difficult aspect of what you do?

5.            Why is that important?

6.            What has been your experience with [that]?

7.            What is the heart of the matter for you?

8.            What makes this hard for you to discuss?

9.            What is your concern?

10.          What would help you move forward? What would hold you back?