Zealise Blog

The Secret Ingredient for Effective Change

They might be words I wrote myself. And if they aren’t they certainly convey a message that I have been promoting for quite a while now.

But whether I have written them or not doesn’t really matter. The message still had enough power to stop even me in my tracks! And they will surely resonate with any business leader today.

So what were they? And who wrote them?

They were “The ultimate competitive advantage in today’s business environment is the ability to change.” And they were written by Edward E Lawler III and Christopher G Worley in the preface to their book, “Built to Change.” (© 2006 John Wiley & Sons – Published by Jossey-Bass)

Now there is nothing new in the statement. After all we all know that change is ubiquitous. Even governments today are facing the need to change. What is striking is the claim that the ‘ability to change’ is the ultimate competitive advantage.

Yet it is not the statement itself that is so striking, but its implications. You see we are all dealing with change on a daily basis. And it’s not just our experience; we read and hear so much about it that we have come to recognise change management as an essential competency. So of course you know that it is vital for survival.  Therefore, even if you haven’t spelled it out in so many words, you know that it has to be something that gives you a competitive advantage.

But it isn’t your change management capability that gives you that competitive advantage; it’s that ‘ability to change.’

What is the difference?  It is a small, subtle, but very significant difference. As the term implies, change management is the ability to deal with change. Change ability on the other hand is the ability to adapt to change. And that is where this book really comes into its own.

It makes the point that you traditionally build organisations to be stable. Organisational design and management theory and practice all aim to maintain control, consistency and order through best practice. As a result they are inherently change resistant. Thus change management, in the author’s words, is about “unfreezing, moving and refreezing.” This is clearly counter-productive in a world of constant change.

Yet we continue to work against ourselves. For example we increasingly recognise the importance of people and value for them for their ability to think, analyze and problem solve. Yet despite this, we continue to constrain them by imposing rigid job descriptions, rigid hours, and rigid rules and systems upon them. Thus you perpetuate the paradox: you want them to be more adaptable but create a culture that precludes this.

Clearly to create the competitive advantage to survive and thrive, you have to create a culture of change ability. And to do that, you have to have people who are totally aligned with the organisational objectives. So your challenge is to find a way to create that organisational alignment.

I cannot think of a better way to lay the foundation for change ability than by making the employees co-owners of the business. Can you? So what are you waiting for?

Employee engagement does not have to be difficult

It is hard enough to find a universal definition of employee engagement. Now new research identifies that there are 4 types of employee engagement. 

So where do you go from here?

Of course any research that throws new light onto the subject has to be welcome. The problem is that all this combines to make employee engagement so much more daunting. And goodness knows it can be daunting enough. You need to make the subject simpler, not more complex.

And as you are well aware you can do that by a focus on “employee” rather than “engagement.” It all boils down to the fact that employees are people. Focusing on the personal can go so very far to removing all the complexity. While people are all different, we all want basically the same thing – fulfilling work. We want work:

• We enjoy
• That enables us to better ourselves;
• Where we can make a difference; and
• In an organisation that can make a difference.

I think we all know and understand that. So for me this research does not add anything new. It simply puts these basic elements into "management speak." It possibly provides a new credibility and gravitas to the subject, but that is about all.

And yet…

I am still delighted it has been published. You see it simply reinforces what I have been saying all along. If you want your people to contribute more you have to address all 4 of these requirements. And to do that consistently you need to do only two things:-

• Empower them to do their work better; and
• Give them an ownership stake in the organisation.

And, as I have been saying all along, the best way possible for you to do that is to:-

1. Recognise them as human assets – and thereby create a partnership with them to optimise their human asset value; and
2. Introduce an employee ownership scheme that cements their contribution to the organisation. 

It really is not rocket science.

Are you inspiring happiness and joy?

“Sometimes we forget that life and work are supposed to bring happiness and joy into our lives.”

When I read those words earlier this week I was reminded of why I formed Zealise and started out on this road.

Work and life are not separate. So if you want a life of happiness and joy you have to find work that creates happiness and joy. You have to stop seeing work as an unfortunate necessity of life and something that conspires against happiness and joy.

And if you are a manager you owe it to your people to create work that brings them happiness and joy. That is what it is all about. That is how you step up from being a mere manager to being a leader.

Of course it helps when you see you organisation as the vehicle for providing goods or services that meet a want. When you have that you get a clear vision and sense of purpose. And as your understanding of that deepens so you start to recognise the mutual inter-dependence of people and the light dawns that your organisation is essentially a source of happiness and joy, powered by what you and your people give.

This creates the demand for a shared vision and a collective responsibility. Success is up to each and every member of the organisation.

The big question then becomes, “To what extent do you fulfil your role?”

Only you can answer that question. And now seems like an appropriate time of the year for you to be asking it - even though It is not a seasonal requrement or a one-off.  But, as you enjoy the holidays, perhaps you can get into the true spirit of the season and start asking yourself. Hopefully as you do you will see the way to ensure that the New Year is a happy, successful and prosperous one.

I certainly hope so and wish it for you. 
 

The real secret to creating employee engagement

Are you giving enough?

Now I am sure you are thinking to yourself, "What kind of question is that?" And of course it is rather ambiguous and open to interpretation, so let me throw a little more light on it and hopefully give you some food for thought. Who knows; it might even change the way you act. And if it does I have little doubt you will get results that astound you.

It is tough being a manager or business leader at the best of times. And I am sure you will agree, these are not the best of times. And as a result you are likely to be under greater pressure to deliver results. Everything takes more effort and you have to run harder and work longer hours. Your energy, your effort and your expertise are all being stretched and as a result you are likely to feel that you are giving a great deal. However, that is expenditure not giving. And sometimes we tend to get the two confused - even though they are massively different.

Giving in its purest form is a spontaneous outpouring; an expression of something from deep inside of you that gives pleasure without necessarily expecting anything in return. On the other hand expenditure always demands a quid pro quo; something in return - usually of equal or greater value. It can certainly bring you pleasure but it is by no means the same for giving is about bestowing pleasure to others.

So what? Well just think for a moment about how much more satisfying the latter is. Expenditure invariably suffers from the law of diminishing returns, whereas giving never does when the gift is appreciated. Think about how you feel about your work. I'll wager you aren't as engaged as you could be. Yet how different it would be if you felt you were making a difference and your effort was appreciated.

Now just pause a moment and ask yourself if your employees aren't feeling the same way? The odds certainly are strong that they are. And if so, what are you doing as their leader to change this. Once again my friend Steve Roesler is offering you the perfect recipe to do so.

Can it really be as easy as asking for help?

Yes, because by asking your people for help, you move them off the expenditure treadmill and onto the giving treadmill. You remove the sense of obligation and pressure and so enable them to feel good about what they are doing. In the process you also create the employee engagement that otherwise seems to you like such a daunting, nearly impossible goal.

You could say it is like the old cliché of selling them instead of telling them. However it is even better than that, because here you are not even doing the selling. Your people are actually sell themselves. They simply buy into something that makes them feel good about what they do and in the process become naturally more engaged - as long as you don't forget to say thank you!

And the real beauty is that it entails less effort than anything else you are doing. There is no expenditure! You are simply giving. And that creates a virtuous circle. 

Where people insight and sensitivity come into employee engagement

I nearly choked! 

The irony was far too much for me.

The cause of my discomfort was an article with the headline, "We can't lose sight of the benefits of the HR function: people insight and sensitivity." Now, I don't know about you but insight and sensitivity are definitely not two of the 'benefits' that I associate with HR.

How much insight or sensitivity would you ascribe to a function that has Security escort people from the premises when they are made redundant? Or that enables a situation to arise where you are called to a meeting and, when you arrive early, you are greeted by a (non-HR) colleague who says, "Oh shame. Have you been called in for your redundancy meeting?"  No, people insight and sensitivity are definitely not something I have witnessed often in my dealings with HR.

Yet, nor do I think that they should be something that distinguishes HR.

After all, how often do people actually deal with HR? The fact is that HR is generally a bureaucratic function. Their primary role is to set, maintain and enforce policy as regards the treatment of people. Think about your own experience. By and large it is your relationship with your manager and colleagues that shapes your day-to-day experience and how you feel about the organisation. Isn't it? So surely you would far rather see insight and sensitivity from them than from HR. And, of course, it is more important that you do.

So I am afraid that it is not just past experience that makes me choke at this headline. It is the perpetuation of the myth that HR is a function that looks after people. For me it reveals why HR has problems being taken seriously. Its focus is on rules, regulations and red-tape, and people insight and sensitivity do not - or only rarely - come into play. So, if you want HR to be taken seriously, you need to get over this self-satisfied delusion and start ensuring that people insight and sensitivity are an organisational responsibility that cover ALL your organisation's dealings with people, and stop seeing it as something that is unique to HR. 

Until you do, I am afraid that your efforts to improve employee engagement will never succeed.

Trust, Loyalty and Customer Service

How loyal are your employees?

Of course you know the answer to that very important question. Don't you? After all, it should be one of your key balanced scorecard measures.

Why?  Because if you don't have loyal employees you cannot expect to deliver the best possible customer service or the best customer value, and that has to hurt your business. Indeed, in his book, "The Loyalty Effect", Frederick Reichfield suggests that lack of employee loyalty can stunt performance and productivity by up to 50%.

I don't know what you think, but that certainly seems pretty obvious to me. And that is why I find all the surveys showing declining employee engagement - or if you prefer, increasing employee disengagement - extremely disturbing. After all a disengaged employee cannot be a loyal employee. So if you don't know the answer to the question, you have a serious problem.

That trend is even more frightening when you realise the book was first published in 1996. We appear to have completely failed to heed our own common sense and the lessons in the book. It would seem that Reichfield himself is concerned by this because in 2006 he followed up with another book, "The Ultimate Question."

The blurb on the website for the book claims that it "offers the missing link of the metrics that hold employees accountable to generate loyal customers." It continues that the key is "elevating customer metrics to the same level of rigor and importance as financial metrics like revenue growth or return on equity. The best way to accomplish that? Using one simple question - How likely is it that you would recommend this company to a friend or colleague?"

So, if you don't already have this as a key metric, there is both the justification for and the detail of how to create it. However, to use it properly you must ask the question of your employees. Apart from anything it will save you a fortune in employee opinion surveys! You need to be aware, however, that the answer is a direct reflection on you and your leadership. After all, if your people would not be prepared to recommend the organisation to their relatives, friends and colleagues, it is because they do not trust you enough and you haven't inspired them sufficiently to make it an organisation that they can be proud of. 

And, at the risk of sounding like a stuck gramophone record, the easiest way to instil trust and create pride in the organisation and so build loyalty, is to make the employees co-owners of the business. The power of the pride and the pride of the power of ownership is the primary force that underpinned the phenomenal success of capitalism. So if you want to create a happy and loyal workforce and engender the performance improvement that you are looking for you need to create a more democratic workplace where your people are driven by a common self-interest to deliver their best. Employee ownership is head and shoulders the best way to do this.

You have no excuse if you fail to recognise this and to do something to make it happen!

Talent Management that ensures Performance Improvement

Are you getting caught up in the brouhaha of talent management? 

You can hardly be blamed for that. After all, as a manager or leader worth the name you should be looking to your people to improve performance! 

And talent management offers you an exciting new approach to ensuring this.

But are you finding it an exhausting treadmill that you cannot get off?

Talent management is another new addition to the management lexicon, and you need to be very careful that you don't get caught up in all the hype, hysteria and hubris that sometimes come with new concepts. You don't want to be like a fan of the latest pop-sensation - screaming so loud that you cannot even hear the music.

Here's a little tool you can use to help you ensure that you do not fall into that trap.

You may recall previously I described the ultimate of talent management as giving your people more respect. I wrote that you could improve performance "if instead of trying to set goals for your people, you gave them enough respect to get on with what they are paid to do!"  Well, that is just another apple pie, motherhood statement unless you have a clear definition of respect.

Respect is more than just another touchy-feely soft-skill requirement. Respect for your people means recognising that they are also making a life-investment in whatever they are doing. It means acknowledging that they are investing their lives in their work and for that reason never want to do a bad job.

The following Mnemonic may help you ensure that you give your people the respect they warrant.
•  R -   Remove barriers to good work
•  E -   Empathise: put yourself in their shoes 
•  S -   Support them in whatever way you can whenever they need it 
•  P -   Praise them (sincerely) at every opportunity
•  E -   Educate them in the true etymological sense of the word - leading out
•  C -  Communicate: Tell them everything that is going on
•  T -  Tend to them: give them the time and nurturing that they need

Feel free to substitute your own terms and create your own aide-memoire that works for you. If you do you will ensure you build employee engagement, because your people are engaged. And with engaged people you guarantee performance improvement.

Also remember that you cannot engage talent because you cannot separate talent from the person. You can only engage the person who provides the talent. So focus on the person and beware the inherent dangers of talent management that could lead you to:- 

• Focus too much on the talent and forget about the person. 
• Create perceptions of talented and untalented people and so develop a two tier organisational structure.

This will help you ensure you don't fall into that trap and win the so-called "war for talent."

A New Approach to Employee Engagement?

Employee engagement is a hot topic.

Certainly it is getting more and more management attention and more and more coverage in blogs, ezines and on the internet. It seems that wherever you turn today, you will find something about the need to engage your employees more. 

Heck, even governments are getting on board. Here in the UK the (Conservative) Prime Minister has followed in the footsteps of his (Labour) predecessor and set up an Employee Engagement Task Force to "bring together two of my government’s top priorities – delivering sustainable growth across the UK, and coming up with new approaches to help people improve their wellbeing.” It must be important if the government is getting involved, right?

So is government backing going to make the big difference and enable us to see the breakthrough that we are all clamouring for? Or is it going to be the "kiss of death"? Time will tell.

However, I recently came across this arresting statement by Richard Bach, most famous as the author of Jonathan Livingstone Seagull; "The more I want to get something done, the less I call it work!" 

Makes you think, doesn't it?

At least it made me think. Perhaps we are guilty of over-complicating the whole subject. Maybe in your endeavour for continuous improvement, increased productivity and greater competitiveness you are sending out a negative message. You are emphasising the importance of work. And maybe that is not a good thing!

Certainly (as I have argued before) the phrase "work-life balance" perpetuates the concept of work as something that conflicts with life rather than being innate to it. Maybe these other things do too. So maybe the answer actually lies in less, not more, emphasis on work. Even the term employee engagement reinforces the concept of employees and employment, which, however you try to soften the message, is ultimately about work and the greater expectation you are putting on your people.

Thus I ask you, without putting my tongue firmly in my cheek, "Do you think you might do better to look at ways to stop calling it work, or even implying it is work?" Of course that is easier said than done, but maybe the Zealise employee ownership model gives you a way of doing this. What do you think? 

How to Beat Conducting an Employee Engagement Survey

Surveys are the epitome of "lies, lies and damned statistics." A survey of a few thousand extrapolated across a population of many millions is hardly absolute, no matter how much statisticians would have us believe it is. Yet we place an almost religious faith in them and use them to shape organisational and political policy. Do we give them too much credibility?

This question becomes even more pertinent when the topic is personal and the results thus likely to be highly subjective. Employee engagement surveys are likely to be particularly susceptible to this.

Certainly my misgivings have been sharpened by a fresh look at the Gallup Q12 - the list of 12 statements which underpin the Gallup Employee Engagement Survey. To see why let's just look at the first of these statements.

I know what is expected of me at work

Now no-one could take exception to that. Of course we would all rather work in a situation where we know exactly what is expected of us, but does that knowledge really make us any more engaged? After all, the slaves building the pyramids or rowing a Roman galley would have known exactly what was expected of them. That, however, would not have made them feel engaged in what they were doing!

And what if you had moved into a new role just prior to the survey being undertaken, and you were still finding your feet?

Suddenly your employee engagement survey, which is in any case a costly and time-consuming exercise, looks more of a subjective exercise assessing a moving target. So how reliable is it? Is the cost justified? In light of this, do you think you would prefer to find a more effective way to assess your employee engagement levels?

Well, the good news is that you do have an alternative. Because employee engagement is so important and significantly affects your bottom line, you can look at the possible consequences of employee disengagement and, by examining their prevalence in your organisation, ascertain the state of your employee engagement.

That is precisely what the Zealise Assessment Programme offers you - a business-focused assessment of employee engagement levels in your organisation. Don't you think it is worthwhile investigating as a viable alternative to conducting an employee engagement survey?

Are you a Virgin?

My apologies for being so weak-minded as to be unable to resist the headline! However, I could not help myself after reading a report on Sir Richard Branson who is shortly to celebrate his 60th birthday. 

In the report he is quoted as saying, "Our guiding principle is this: give individuals the tools they need, outline some parameters to work within and then just let them get on and do their stuff." Naturally it made me wonder how many companies do this - and (sacrilege) - even whether it applies right down the line in all Virgin companies?

In all seriousness, I wonder how many people feel they are able to "just get on and do their stuff?" Surely employee engagement surveys that nearly 80% of employees are disengaged are evidence that very few people find themselves in this position. 

Accordingly, I thought it might be worthwhile to do a little "Virgin test." You can consider yourself a "Virgin" if:-

• You are a manager who consciously adopts that philosophy and you empower your people accordingly; or
• You are an employee who feels so empowered.

Of course this is hardly scientific, but please do cast your vote anyway. The results should nevertheless be interesting. (Especially if you work for Virgin and the answer is no!)