The HR Whisperer

Yes, this is really me in Steamboat, CO!

With the new year beginning, I started thinking about what the year might hold for the workplace and employees.  Well, I’ll be honest; I was really thinking about snow and skiing.  Those two are at least fun —  I know,  I know.  Unless you have to get on the roof with the hairdryer to de-ice the gutters before the second storm hits and the snow wrecks the house (true story).   Been there, done that.  Sunny Florida beckoned.  I went.  Still miss snow, though.

But it did get me thinking about employees and their needs.  There’s this old adage that says, red sky at night, sailors’ delight; red sky at morning sailors take warning.  Meteorologists and sailors alike know that a red dawn means high water content from an approaching low pressure system.  Simply put, a [snow] storm is brewing.

Well, we have a red dawn coming.  Employers have enjoyed loyalty from their workforce, especially with the down economy.  While 2010 may still be a downer, things seem to be looking up job-wise, which means that employees will soon be on the move again.  There’s a tempest coming and with it new work ethics, attitudes and priorities.  It’s the perfect storm.

But, in spite of record unemployment, a dismal economy, and Gen Y entering the workforce, employees still have the same expectations they always did.  Spherion points out in its 2009 Emerging Workforce Study that despite the significant change workers have witnessed over the past few years, there is surprisingly little change in how they perceive the employment relationship.  While people may stay at an organization because the current economy demands they do so, holding a job and being motivated in that position are two vastly different things. 

So, how can organizations prepare for the stormy employer-employee relationship in 2010?  Three things: 1) concentrate on the social-emotional connection, 2) offer developmental opportunities that link to the organizational mission, and 3) take advantage of social media.

          Focus on the social-emotional connection.  One of the greatest causes of misery for employees is the feeling that the organization they work for isn’t interested in who they are and what goes on in their lives.  Combat this by training supervisors in social-emotional intelligence.  No matter what the business climate, the generation of the worker, or the technology available, all people want to feel important.  The Hawthorne Studies of 1924 found that if managers paid more attention and cared about employees, it raised morale and increased productivity.  That still holds true today: a recent worldwide engagement study that found that organizations with the highest percent of motivated employees increased income 19% and earnings per share 28%.  Creating the social-emotional connection also means that basic HR programs have to be in place to meet employee needs.  This includes having a decent compensation and benefits package, providing accommodations for the disabled; offering flexible work arrangements, establishing special-interest networks, and presenting good career prospects.

          Provide developmental opportunities that link to the organization’s mission and vision.  The “perfect storm” of the emerging employment contract implies that there will never be job security, that employment will be contingent on added value, and that workers have the right to demand the freedom and resources to do their jobs well.  So, if workers are to add value, help them by providing ample opportunity to improve skills and capabilities.  There are many ways to do this such as through education and training, job enrichment or enlargement, coaching and feedback.

          Take advantage of social media.  Social media is the new way of connecting and tech-savvy workers are using it to keep in touch with friends and family, share information, surf for a new job, and provide opinions on their work and their workplace.  Social media is a virtual conversation and because of this, business is now a virtual conversation.  With the advent of social media, an organization’s brand or reputation can be literally one comment away from disaster – from a Twitter blurb, Facebook post or Epinions review.  Someone out there is talking about the organization and they can say whatever it is they want.  What you can do though, is help manage the conversation.

Managing the conversation however, does not mean telling employees what to say.  It means creating an authentic atmosphere where people can initiate a conversation.  In the era of business transparency, empowering people to tell the truth can be risky, but also rewarding.  Think about how your organization can use social media to its advantage.  Introduce rules of engagement for employees and encourage them participate with an understanding of those rules.  Use social connections to share information about the company – create organization Facebook pages, Twitter accounts, or company wikis and blogs where people can share information, celebrate accomplishments, trade opinions. If something bad pops up, have a person in the organization accountable for responding to it appropriately.  Just keep the conversation going.

While workers may be staying in their respective jobs due to the economy, if the relationship is not a strong one – or is abused – when the storm is over, employees will leave for greener pastures.  Whether it’s today or tomorrow, organizations that invest in their people will find that their people will invest in them.

It kills me, just kills me, when I read about HR-related issues in BusinessWeek magazine.  I know  it is a business-related sheet and all, but they don’t always make me feel all warm and fuzzy when they start talking about the human side of things.  It’s not often that an article will catch my eye, but in this case one did and so is the inspiration for this week’s blog. 

The October 5^th article, “The No-Cost Way to Motivate,” by Patrick Lencioni who also wrote The Five Dysfunctions of a Team, focuses on the fact that no matter who you are or what you do, everyone wants someone to be interested in them, both personally and professionally.  Lencioni says:

                “One of the greatest causes of misery for employees is the feeling that the person they work for isn’t interested in who they are and what goes on in their lives, personally or professionally. Regardless of how much money people make and whether their jobs suit them, if they feel anonymous they’ll dread going to work – and return home deflated…a manager needs to be interested in employees from a professional standpoint too, not only in job details, but also in motivation. And a big part of this is helping people figure out why their job matters to someone, somewhere in some way large or small.”

The famous Hawthorne Studies of 1924 found that if managers paid a more attention to employees and seemed to care about them, it raised morale and increased productivity.  That was followed by an additional 80+ years of research that essentially told us the same thing.  Then in 2008, Towers Perrin did an employee engagement study that found that  firms with the highest percent of engaged employees increased income 19% and earnings per share 28%. 

So it seems everybody is getting on the bus.  Even BusinessWeek.  So why don’t we see it in practice then?

As the HR Whisperer, this particular concept is one that I have been preaching about for years.  To be motivated at work, everyone needs what I call the EDA:  exercise, discipline and affection.*  You’ve got these, then you’ve got engagement.

Want to motivate employees and get them engaged?  Then use EDA:

Exercise – Give employees the opportunity to improve their skills and capabilities.  There are a ton of ways to do this, such as through education and training,  job enrichment or enlargement, coaching and feedback.  Provide opportunities for folks to have input into decision-making and to be innovative in their thinking or problem solving.  Exercising the brain keeps people interested and involved.

Discipline – Work with employees to set goals and strategies to achieve those goals.  The discipline of planning the work and working the plan creates that line of sight for achievement.  Additionally, provide challenging work assignments that not only broaden skills, but can serve as career advancement opportunities.  This will demonstrate to employees that stick-to-itness will reap rewards.

Affection – Employees continually tell us they want senior management interested in their well being and good relationships with their supervisors.  Lack of a good supervisor relationship is the number one reason people leave their jobs.  In Social Intelligence and the Biology of the Pack Leader, I talk about the importance of the supervisor-employee relationship.  To me, this is the biggie — and Lencioni agrees.

Of course there is no sure fire, quick fix.  Motivation depends on the individual’s perception of what is a valued motivator to them.  But even BusinessWeek tells us that if we pay attention to our employees and work to meet their needs, we’re going to get a pretty decent return on our investment.  And that’s a no brainer.

*I must give credit to Cesar Millan, whose catch phrase for creating a balanced canine is “exercise, discipline, and affection.”

Once again I must thank my mentor, Cesar Millan, for the inspiration for this week’s blog.  He said that “when humans bring a dog into their lives, they are most often looking for a companion; what they may not realize is that they are getting a teacher as well.”  This is true in a business sense, too.  When we bring a potential leader into our organization, we should be getting someone who can teach or positively influence others.  But teaching goes both ways…is it really possible to teach someone to be an effective leader or is it just genetics coming into play?

Many organizations decide they want to implement a leadership development program because they need better leaders or people who could be put into some kind of succession plan.  The HR department gets the charge to put “something together” and manages to get someone to run the program, get people into it and maybe even toss in a measure or two to try to link the success of the program to a business goal–all within a few months.  Is it any surprise then, that so many of these programs lose steam after one year or fall flat due to budget cuts?  Aside from the timing and operational issues, the real question centers on whether or not leadership development programs truly teach people to be good leaders.

Leadership by its definition is a very complex.  Some say that leadership is a natural thing, that we are born with the innate qualities it takes to be a leader.  Psychologists have continuously searched for the personal attributes that would describe leaders and differentiate them from the rest of the pack.  A large body of research supports the theory that the “Big Five” of personality traits underlie all others and encompass most of the significant variation in human personality. In addition to providing a cohesive framework, research has also found strong relationships between the Big Five and job performance, especially in terms of successful leadership.  It’s no surprise then that tools like the Myers-Briggs’ MBTI® or DiSC® tend to be a part of LD programs.

More recent research shows that effective leaders have emotional intelligence (EI).  Daniel Goleman found that high levels of EI predicts high performance.  I would even go so far as to say that the combination of EI and the Big Five trait of extroversion defines charisma.  A definitive study conducted in 1999 on the personalities of two executive management teams found that over a period of five years the charismatic personality of the executive manager and of the team he selected was key to understanding a company’s rise or decline in the market.  

Hmmm.

Now on the other hand, behavioral theories focus on identifying the specific behaviors that differentiate leaders from nonleaders, which implies that these behaviors can be taught, i.e., leadership is a competency that can be broken down into concrete sets of trainable skills.  The most comprehensive of the behavioral theories resulted from research conducted at Ohio State University in the late 40s where the researchers narrowed a thousand different leadership dimensions into two categories: (1) task/structure and (2) relationship/consideration.  The managerial grid developed by Blake and Mouton and the contingency leadership theory developed by Hersey and Blanchard in the 1960s serve as the landmarks for situational leadership theory today.  The Hersey-Blanchard theory in particular focuses on the leader being able to select the right behavioral style based on followers’ willingness and ability.   

So, in my mind good leadership really is a combination of personality and environment. Which brings us back to our original question:  can people be trained in leadership?  The answer to me is an unequivocal yes.  Strong, results-driven leadership development programs worth their salt screen for the necessary Big Five personality traits and then provide adult-centered interventions to develop the skills necessary to:

• Run the task/structure of a business, such as strategic planning and financial management.
• Develop the relationship/consideration in teams, such as communication and conflict management.
• Understand the self and corresponding behavior by opening the Johari Window through extensive feedback, coaching and 360° profiling.

Another question:  if “nature” and “nurture” are important elements of leader effectiveness then, how does experience play a part?  Many believe that the value of on-the-job experience is a strong predictor of leadership effectiveness. Research, however shows that experience alone is usually a very poor predictor of leadership.  There have been numerous studies of military officers, shop supervisors, and school principals that demonstrate that experienced leaders tend to be no more effective than leaders who have little experience.  The problem seems to be in the variability of the situations a leader finds himself in that influence whether or not the experience will transfer to that situation.  Another problem is the assumption that the amount of time a leader spends in a particular position is really a true measure of experience.  So, LD programs need to provide education, training and experience through action learning.

Remember the heroes of September 11?  They may not have had the particular experience of being attacked by terrorists, but may have had the necessary personality traits and training in leading others and influencing them to action.

And that’s what we really need in any LD program.