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.

Hey, stop talking about me on Face Book!

You might want to read an interesting blog post today involving another “Twittercide” This time having to do with the firing of a well known reporter at CNN. Read the post here Warren and Hays

If you have not yet adopted a social media use policy for your workplace, you may want to begin with the briefest of language to add to an employee handbook.  For example:

Social media use including blogging, and visits to social networking sites, is not permitted during business hours or on employer owned computers except where it has been specifically approved for business use. Also, employees should be cautious when using social media during non-work hours to avoid the appearance of speaking on behalf of [the employer] . Whether on or off duty, professional conduct is expected whenever an employee represents his or herself as an employee of this organization.  Employees are advised to keep in mind that all conduct that negatively impacts the workplace will be addressed through disciplinary procedures.  Unprofessional conduct on social media sites that serves to disrupt business or cause conflicts in the workplace will be addressed the same as any other personal conduct that interferes with effective performance of job duties.

Hay has provided early salary budget increases. The average has nudged up from 2.6% in 2010 to a projected average increase of 2.9%   Salary structure increases are projected at an average of 2.3%   View the summary and more information about merit increases at Hay Group.

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.

The Institute for Corporate Productivity has recently published study findings which include an interactive graph that reveal the current benchmark for full time staff dedicated to human resources based on size of the organization and whether the organization is measured as a “high” performing organization or a “low” performing organization. Overall, the data reveals that 1.97 FTE are dedicated to HR for every 100 employees in high performing organizations while it is only slightly lower for low performing organizations. However, the difference between “high” and “low” is much greater when the results are narrowed down to specific sectors.

For example, if you are a non-commercial employer (this category includes public sector) in the US with less than 100 employees and measure yourself as a “high” performing organization, you report on average 1.08 full time HR employees. However, if measure yourself as a “low” performer, you report an average of 5.56 employees for the same size organization! 

Contrast this with organizations with between 100 and 1000 employees; high performing organizations report on average 2.51 FTEs dedicated to HR for every 100 employees and low performing report on average 1.74 FTEs for every 100 employees.

Even larger organizations, with more than 1000 and up to 10,000 employees, show a leaner number and smaller gap. They report on average 1.24 FTEs in HR for every 100 employees in high performing organizations and 1.38 FTEs in low performing organizations.

How do we interpret this data? First of all, the category of less than 100 employees does not contain enough data points be valid, and undoubtedly contains an outlier or two, but even as anecdotal information, it points out that the HR function must be performed in every organization, regardless of size, and the scope of concerns which must be addressed may create inefficiencies.  Therefore, organizations that report 0-1 dedicated staff likely outsource at least some of the HR function and those that report upwards of 5 or more are doing it all without sufficient resources and skill. The streamlined effect occurs when the organization is much larger and perhaps (we might speculate) dedicates more resources, i.e., technology and professional staff, to improving efficiencies.

Photo by Rundstedt B. Rovillo

How Much is Education and Experience Worth?

Clients often express a desire to pay for exceptional education and experience and want a policy to support this approach. But the caveat is usually that this wish is only for some, but not all, jobs. What to do?

The answer may depend on whether the organization emphasizes external worth (as measured by the market) or internal worth (as measured by job evaluation).   

A market approach relies on the dynamics of the market to determine whether pay should be accelerated or decelerated to keep pace with the value of experience and education. Due to the availability of sophisticated pay databases, an employer may target a market level, e.g., five years of experience, and pay all job incumbents in a similar range, or allow for pay adjustments based on individual measures of education and experience. (The latter would be typical in a highly competitive market.)

But most organizations rely on a combined approach and build a pay structure that reflects external and internal factors, such as job evaluation. When jobs are evaluated internally, required education and experience is typically acknowledged in the system and a new hire is paid a rate that is in part, based on that internal valuation. Pay, from that point forward, is based on a combination of factors related to performance, market, and yes, another year in the job. The point is, most employers who use the combined approach do not examine pay through the lens of education and experience after hire.

However, the truth is, not all jobs need to be treated equally. Employers can determine which jobs need to be paid for exceptional education and experience. It is a matter of determining which jobs fall in a highly volatile or otherwise tight market.  Look at your recruitment and exit data and job availability and turnover data by industry (see resources below).  Another reason to pay differentially is the difficulty in recruiting to a particular geographic location. Some job skills may be readily available in the areas, others may not. There are, in fact, a number of reasons that constitute a sound basis for policy exception. But whatever the reason, it is important to rely on good documentation of the reasons why the jobs are different, as well as the market data on which decisions are supported.

By the way, two here are excellent sites (free) to explore if you are valuing jobs using the market or job evaluation. You will find detailed job analysis for many jobs as well as market information.

ONET Online

BLS Wages by Area and Occupation

Call me if you have questions or need assistance.

Performance Reviews and Workplace Stress

The NY Times Health section recently reported on workplace studies that show the negative health effects of stress at work and in particular, cited performance reviews as a cause. Although performance reviews are necessary to separate the high performers from the low performers and provide adequate documentation, most of us also acknowledge the difficulty in delivering effective feedback and even those of us who agree they are necessary, cringe at the thought of giving reviews.

So is anyone surprised at the link between performance reviews and workplace stress? In fact, this finding relates to a much broader area of research which links high stress levels, low productivity, low engagement and low morale, to one major factor: the relationship with and/or perceived competence of the front line supervisor.  The Conference Board research cited in this article is only one among many studies showing that employee satisfaction is greatly impacted by the quality of managers.

Two important lessons can be taken from these findings: In brief, there is no one-size-fits-all and a performance review system does not need to be overwrought.  Oftentimes I consult with organizations that do not have the will or the means to develop a system that integrates performance with competencies, pay or organization-wide goals.  In such cases, I stress the following:

• Start a performance review program by sitting down with each employee once a year and reviewing the job description to discuss changes, perceptions of the job and expectations, all the while keeping the discussion focused on the job.
• Then establish goals for the coming year that reflect priorities for the organization. Set timelines, and target dates to report on progress.
• Finally, keep a record of summary comments by supervisor and employee about the outcome of the interview.

This type of review process steers away from judging attributes or personal characteristics which often give rise to the perceptions of unfairness, especially where trust is in question.  Rely on a well drafted personnel policy with a discipline policy to address problems that disrupt business and relationships at the workplace.

The second important lesson is that while after years of research, we now know that leaders with emotional competence (“people persons”) create less toxic, less stressful workplaces. What is becoming more evident in the research is the stronger link between first line supervisors and stress.  So we need to think more about assessing people skills in lower level supervisory positions as well as assessing and coaching in this area.  Some specific suggestions include:

• Develop internal mentoring relationships to promote informal coaching and feedback.
• If possible, provide formal coaching by an external person to help supervisors follow a more structured development plan.
• Provide an outlet for employees to report problems with supervisors (this is where a good HR person is vital). 

 Good relationships lend themselves to productive feedback. So leaders who hire can, and should, place a premium on people skills.  Also, use performance reviews sparingly and consider all the various ways to deliver feedback. The main idea is to communicate what is important in the job, both short term and long term. So, conduct mini-reviews everyday on yourself and your staff and then ask yourself, “what important conversations do I need to have today?”

OTHER NEWS AND UPDATES OF INTEREST

Save the Workplace and Fire Bad Supervisors and Managers  This blog post continues the discussion on supervisors and performance evaluation.

Another piece that compliments today’s topic: How to spot a liar and why it might be harder if he’s the boss.

Be aware! One of the proposed amendments by the DOL for the Fair Labor Standards Act is that all employees will be considered non-exempt unless proven exempt.  In order to “prove” exemption, the employer will need to show that a position has been analyzed, that the job incumbent has reviewed the analysis and that the analysis is kept as a record for review by wage and hour in the event of an investigation.

Did you know? Employees harassed by Third-Parties: Male Prisoners Harassing Female Correctional Employees  In this case, the employer was responsible under Title VII for harassment.

Inability to get along with co-workers can be sufficient basis for adverse employment action – from Employment Law Matters – note that this case highlights the importance of good documentation.

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.