Today the U.S. emerged from its 2^nd game in the World Cup Championship with a 2-2 tie against Slovenia. While this is not a bad showing, no one is likely to soon forget the spectacular goal made by the U.S. near the end of the game, which was never counted because a referee called a foul against the U.S. when by all accounts it appeared as if a U.S. player had been fouled and a penalty kick should have been awarded.

It is moments like these that test leaders and champions. When the stakes are high and the subjective nature of referee calls introduce a level of uncertainty, players and coaches must keep both focus and intensity. While we, the viewers, bemoan the unfairness of it all, champions understand that this is part of the game and play on.

Rafael Nadal, the Spaniard who won the French Open recently, spoke in an interview about how he developed his professional demeanor during big matches. He said he once had an uncle who purposely introduced every kind of injustice into his practices, to test his tolerance, endurance and focus through all types of trials, whether just or unjust.  While unconventional, the tactic made sense in a real world context.

Today, both coaches, Matjaz Kek of Slovenia, and Bob Bradley of the U.S., exhibited contained excitement when their teams scored and reserved aplomb when the calls went the other way. They appeared to be more concerned about what they were going to do next. Therein is a grain of wisdom we can embrace for our leadership strategies as well as our own personal development.  In order to rise to the heights of our potential, we must accept uncertainties we cannot predict and rather than waste energy fighting perceived injustices, we can call up the champion in us, keep our eye on the horizon and play on.

In memory of my father who taught me all I know about playing on through adversity. This Father’s Day, may we  remember great fathers everywhere; those who are here with us, as well as those who have gone but remain with us in spirit and those we hold in our hearts as father; may their light keep on shining brightly in our life.

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.

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

The primary motivation for this article is my quest to help clients achieve better employee engagement in the face of labor negotiations that can sour management employee relations. Although labor management partnerships (LMP’s) are separate from the collective bargaining process, they are instrumental in building relationships and mutual understanding of the challenges facing the organization.

As I sat down recently to write an article about an employee health care committee that has successfully reduced health care costs, in a union environment, I decided I first needed to know more about the state of labor management partnerships today. Just how unusual is it to find a workplace where unionized workers are willing to participate in a committee with a goal to bring down health care costs?  Certainly, many of my clients would look at me askew, or at least a bit skeptical if I suggested this was possible. But I propose it is quite possible if the intention is to engage employees in mutual problem solving and workplace improvement.

But, where does one begin?

According to Daniel O’Meara and Adam Taliaferro[i] 

The goal of an LMP is to bring employees, managers and union officials together to make full use of each group’s and each individual’s knowledge. An LMP properly created can eliminate waste, improve service or quality of care and improve profitability. Employees, who do the job every day, are able to offer novel resolutions to the problems at hand, allowing managers to move away from directing how work is done and into coaching and mentoring roles.

First, it is good to know what has worked and how a committee or partnership might look.  My recollection of working in the field of labor relations in the 80’s was that labor management partnerships flourished. Today, it appears that formal partnerships are less prevalent. Although, in the mid-1990’s, President Clinton gave an executive order for labor management partnership initiatives, the labor community has expressed mixed views on whether these initiatives were good for labor. Another chilling effect on labor management partnerships came with an NLRB ruling in 2001 that found that, well, not ALL labor management committees are illegal, but many are.  The ruling, in effect, stated that employers and employees must not engage in anything that looks like bargaining when they are holding labor management committee meetings.  More on that here.

Today, one clear example of a thriving LMP can be found in the health care community. Kaiser Permanente has the largest and most comprehensive labor management partnership in the country, and displays their ambitious efforts on-line for others to learn from.  But on balance, the references to LMPs are few and the signs are not encouraging. If one is searching for information about how to move in a constructive direction toward labor management cooperation, I can suggest a few helpful resources I relied upon for this blog post:

Labor Management Solutions

http://www.labormanagementsolutions.org/Resources

Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service

http://www.fmcs.gov/internet/categoryList.asp?categoryID=57

Article by Daniel O’Meara and Adam Taliaferro, of Montgomery McCracken Walker and Rhoads, Six Steps to an Effective Labor Management Partnership

CorpCounsel.com

http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202433126509

Labor management partnerships require both labor and management groups to adopt practices of openness and disclosure. The challenge is to create mutual understanding of the links between financial information and performance.  This relates back to the point raised in the previous article about creating feedback loops. Reports, with meaningful data that can be understood by all, can be a vehicle for an effective feedback loop. It can measure progress and create a common framework for understanding how the organization is doing.

Finally, employees may have to take the initiative to affect change in their union ranks in order to bring about changes that are necessary to support a labor management partnership. Management must stay the course and not interfere with employees as they work through the changes needed for their bargaining unit.

O’Meara and Taliaferro, in the article cited above (here) provide an overview of the six steps to an effective Labor Management partnership:

1. Create realistic goals and expectations.
2. Get top level support.
3. Separate the LMP from the collective bargaining relationship.
4. Choose the right structure and the best people.
5. Address discrete issues one at a time.
6. Conduct meetings in ways that work.

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.

What is critical for success?

Does anyone wonder if my friend Dylan is going to forget this time in his life when he mastered what was critical for success? Performance management involves coaching, discipline and also inspiration.  When we take the first step out, others will follow. We set the tone, show the way, model courage in the face of change. Many of you today are thinking about what lies ahead with ever tightening budgets.  My clients are talking about strategies to re-structure jobs and reward performance, in essence, to work smarter and maximize potential and capabilities in the work force.  Performance management provides a framework for accomplishing change, but it cannot work unless a leader is willing to talk the helm.

Leaders change the way we think and act. Performance management is part of the skill set of a leader. When we talk about a system, as in performance management system, we are talking about a perspective that takes in the whole of the organization. It is not just something you do once in a year, it is a way to thinking about how to build success into the organization.

The first step in building a performance management system is identifying critical job competencies. When I worked with the County of Lancaster on this, the management team came up with what they thought was a comprehensive list of critical core competencies. Timi Kirchner, then the County Administrator, recently recalled to me how she remembers that a focus group took a look and came back with something much more complete, descriptive and even more challenging then the management team. I have seen this in many other organizations too, which is why I recommend engaging your employees in this question:

What is critical for success?

Great questions

Next, profile your high performers using the list of critical competencies. Gather stories and examples of behaviors that demonstrate these competencies.  You can also use these questions to gather information from employees during an annual performance review, or ask these questions during an employment interview to see if the candidate fits in with your organization.

¨  Tell me about three challenges you faced in this past year. How did you deal with these challenges?

¨  What competencies do you think were critical to the outcomes?

¨  What did you learn about your strengths and what competency are you most interested in developing in the future?

Develop a dictionary

You can also develop a dictionary of critical competencies for your organization. You may want to start with an existing dictionary (one is available at www. njhessassociates.com on the resource page) and then customize it using data from your own organization.

Job Descriptions

You also want to develop job descriptions to document actual work duties and a list of competencies, including knowledge skills and abilities required for the job. Use a methodology that is structured and systematic so you can defend your job descriptions if need be. For instance, be sure to

¨  Use structured questionnaires

¨  Interview to confirm and gather additional data

¨  Allow for comments from supervisor and employee.

Create Clear Performance Goals

Two types of goals are common and important in the performance evaluation process:

¨  Job goals relate to organization mission, goals and strategies.

¨  Development goals relate to competencies.

 Lucca is my neighbor’s dog, and she also reminds me of what it means to be a natural performer. But she does not perform without clear direction. The minute I change my focus away from her, she begins to lose interest as well. So, focused and intentional direction, and communication of clear expectations is imperative!

Do’s and Don’ts

Finally, a few do’s and don’ts

¨  DO create a policy and procedure that outlines the process for an annual review. It can be…

¨  Short and sweet with a focus on review of job and development goals(an example can be found at www.njhessassociates.com)

¨  Or , it can be more extensive with a focus on competency development where employee and supervisor review job performance from the context of a  competency profile created for their job.

¨  DON’T confuse your performance program with your disciplinary policy.

¨  DO include an appeals policy.

¨  DO practice documentation of reviews.

¨  DO have someone review all evaluations for consistency and integrity.

What does a WWII movie made in 1957 have to do with leadership challenges today? Grab the DVD and a few friends, and discover (or more probably re-discover) the amazing lessons of this paradoxical drama, based on historical events, that shine through time and cross many boundaries of conventional thought.

If you haven’t seen the movie the basic premise is a British outfit is captured and taken to a Japanese prison camp in southern Burma. Their fearless leader, the British Colonel Nicholson (Alec Guiness) is pitted against Japanese Camp Commander, Colonel Saito.  The movie opens with the captured men marching into camp whistling the Colonel Bogey march.  The tune has come to be synonymous with courage and esprit de corps and if you were at a pops concert this past July 4^th (as was I) you probably whistled it.

From the first encounter, Colonel Nicholson and Colonel Saito face off in a clash of culture. Colonel Saito views the other Commander as a coward for allowing his troops to surrender, but he quickly learns he underestimated the mental toughness of his opposition when the British commander refuses the order for his officers to engage in manual work alongside the other men in a bridge construction project.

Colonel Nicholson cites the Geneva Convention rules and refuses to compromise even at great risk to his own life and that of his officers. When Colonel Saito capitulates in toto, Colonel Nicholson embarks on an ingenious plan to motivate his men by employing his officers to direct his men in building the finest bridge their Japanese counterparts could possibly imagine.

First lesson; the Geneva Convention rules were created to set boundaries for ethical behavior in war time situations. They gave Colonel Nicholson credibility and authority and established him as a leader while the ignorance or disregard for the rules diminished the leadership capacity of Colonel Saito. What relevance do these rules have today given recent events in Guantanamo and can analogies be made to other global concerns where ethical guidelines are absent?

 Second lesson; Colonel Nicholson began with a clear mission and vision for his troops, but also conveyed strong values to undergird his leadership. As the project unfolded, he became over identified with the project to the point that he lost sight of strategic advantages or disadvantages of the bridge in a wartime operation. In essence, like a lover, he fell so in love with his project, he lost his head, the consequences of which define the ending of the movie.  What were the signs that he lost his way and how might this development have had different outcomes?

Third lesson:  Colonel Saito portrays a ruthless commander at the outset, but when he relinquishes power to his opposition, in order to get his bridge completed, he falls under a spell of malaise fueled with jealousy of his opponent’s success and especially the loyalty and respect he receives from his men.  Did Colonel Saito demonstrate leadership in a) relinquishing power and b) bolstering Colonel Nicholson’s efforts? What cultural differences in understanding about leadership existed between the men?

This movie is littered with great characters and insights into human nature which can be discussed and debated from numerous perspectives.

What lessons and insights can be added to this list?