What the Best Companies Do to (Re)engage Their Employees

Engagement refers to the commitment employees feel toward their organization (eg, their willingness to recommend it to friends and family, their pride in working for it, and their intentions to remain a part of it). But it’s also about employees’ discretionary effort – their willingness to go above and beyond the call of duty or go the extra mile for the organization. Right now, as organizations need to do more with less and strive for greater efficiency, tapping into the discretionary effort of employees is more essential than ever.



While necessary, engagement alone is not sufficient for achieving maximum levels of individual and organizational effectiveness. Indeed, many organizations characterized by high levels of employee engagement still struggle with performance issues. Leaders must not only engage and motivate employees but also enable them to channel their efforts productively.

In an enabled workforce, employees are in roles that optimize their skills, abilities, and interests. Likewise, employees have the essential resources to get the job done (eg, information, technology, tools and equipment, financial support), and they are able to focus on their key responsibilities without wasting time navigating obstacles in the work environment, such as procedural restrictions and non-essential tasks.

Companies that consistently focus on people as their most important asset are likely to foster the employee engagement and employee enablement necessary to cope with economic challenges and set the stage for enhanced performance as the economy recovers. Hay study results and consulting experience show, when it comes to employee issues, a downturn is not the time to take your eye off the ball. Organizations that follow the lead of Most Admired Companies and put people first in both good times and bad times will be rewarded with employee loyalty and motivation to drive sustained performance.

7 Strategic Questions Business Media Leaders Should Be Asking

Over the last few weeks a major swathe of the quoted business media companies have been reporting their results. While I have covered some of them on this blog I have not done so from the perspective of a financial analyst. Instead, I find it fascinating to see the leadership teams of these companies present their strategy for their businesses.

Individually these results presentations tell a lot about how an individual business is shaping up. What are the threats to their traditional markets? How are they making the transition to a digital future? How strong is the management team? etc. What gets more interesting though is when you aggregate these presentations and try to distil some key themes from them.

So here I would like to pull out 7 key questions that I believe business media companies should be asking themselves if they are to prepare themselves for the years ahead:

1. What business am I in?
2. What does my company do really well?
3. In which markets do we own brands with ‘last-man standing’ advantage?
4. What is our emerging markets strategy?
5. What are we doing to move up the value chain of information in your chosen markets?
6. Is my business structured for the past or the future?
7. Can I explain my company strategy clearly, simply and believably?

Any others that you’d like to contribute? Please send me your comments to wgstevens2@gmail.com .

from Rory Browns blog

Emotional Intelligence - Test Yourself

One of the most overlooked areas in executives in their emotional intelligence. You should test yourself by going to this link: http://psychology.about.com/library/quiz/bl_eq_quiz.htm.

See how you fair.

The Top 10 Leadership Qualities

Leadership can be defined as one's ability to get others to willingly follow. Every organization needs leaders at every level. Leaders can be found and nurtured if you look for the following character traits.



A leader with vision has a clear, vivid picture of where to go, as well as a firm grasp on what success looks like and how to achieve it. But it’s not enough to have a vision; leaders must also share it and act upon it. Jack Welch, former chairman and CEO of General Electric Co., said, "Good business leaders create a vision, articulate the vision, passionately own the vision and relentlessly drive it to completion."



A leader must be able to communicate his or her vision in terms that cause followers to buy into it. He or she must communicate clearly and passionately, as passion is contagious.



A good leader must have the discipline to work toward his or her vision single-mindedly, as well as to direct his or her actions and those of the team toward the goal. Action is the mark of a leader. A leader does not suffer “analysis paralysis” but is always doing something in pursuit of the vision, inspiring others to do the same.

• Integrity is the integration of outward actions and inner values. A person of integrity is the same on the outside and on the inside. Such an individual can be trusted because he or she never veers from inner values, even when it might be expeditious to do so. A leader must have the trust of followers and therefore must display integrity. Honest dealings, predictable reactions, well-controlled emotions, and an absence of tantrums and harsh outbursts are all signs of integrity. A leader who is centered in integrity will be more approachable by followers.
• Dedication means spending whatever time or energy is necessary to accomplish the task at hand. A leader inspires dedication by example, doing whatever it takes to complete the next step toward the vision. By setting an excellent example, leaders can show followers that there are no nine-to-five jobs on the team, only opportunities to achieve something great.
• Magnanimity means giving credit where it is due. A magnanimous leader ensures that credit for successes is spread as widely as possible throughout the company. Conversely, a good leader takes personal responsibility for failures. This sort of reverse magnanimity helps other people feel good about themselves and draws the team closer together. To spread the fame and take the blame is a hallmark of effective leadership.
• Leaders with humility recognize that they are no better or worse than other members of the team. A humble leader is not self-effacing but rather tries to elevate everyone. Leaders with humility also understand that their status does not make them a god. Mahatma Gandhi is a role model for Indian leaders, and he pursued a “follower-centric” leadership role.
• Openness means being able to listen to new ideas, even if they do not conform to the usual way of thinking. Good leaders are able to suspend judgment while listening to others’ ideas, as well as accept new ways of doing things that someone else thought of. Openness builds mutual respect and trust between leaders and followers, and it also keeps the team well supplied with new ideas that can further its vision.
• Creativity is the ability to think differently, to get outside of the box that constrains solutions. Creativity gives leaders the ability to see things that others have not seen and thus lead followers in new directions. The most important question that a leader can ask is, “What if … ?” Possibly the worst thing a leader can say is, “I know this is a dumb question ... ”
• Fairness means dealing with others consistently and justly. A leader must check all the facts and hear everyone out before passing judgment. He or she must avoid leaping to conclusions based on incomplete evidence. When people feel they that are being treated fairly, they reward a leader with loyalty and dedication.
• Assertiveness is not the same as aggressiveness. Rather, it is the ability to clearly state what one expects so that there will be no misunderstandings. A leader must be assertive to get the desired results. Along with assertiveness comes the responsibility to clearly understand what followers expect from their leader.
• A sense of humor is vital to relieve tension and boredom, as well as to defuse hostility. Effective leaders know how to use humor to energize followers. Humor is a form of power that provides some control over the work environment. And simply put, humor fosters good camaraderie.

Intrinsic traits such as intelligence, good looks, height and so on are not necessary to become a leader. Anyone can cultivate the proper leadership traits. So, can you define the leadership traits your managers and CEO have against these qualities?


By David Hakala on March 19, 2008 The Help

 

Coming Soon to Your Business: A Leadership Crisis

Worried about your next generation of leaders?



You’re not alone. According to a new survey about leadership skills from Pearson and Executive Development Associates Inc. (EDA), 57% of business executives said their leadership talent pipeline was the same or weaker today than it was two years ago. Seventy-five percent said increasing bench strength will be their top business priority for the next two to three years. Is this too little too effort?

When asked what skills were needed to assume executive positions within the next three to five years, respondents cited strategic thinking, leading change, the ability to create a vision and engage others around it, the ability to inspire, and the ability to understand how the total enterprise works. But the respondents also agreed these were the very skills lacking in their current talent pool.


The right successor must have just the right blend of personality, time and experience. And with a more complex and faster changing marketplace destined to be our future, the ability to deal with ambiguity and paradox is paramount. This combination requires innate talent plus development. Creating this competency can take years and many people just are not equipped to ascend to the role. And others who have the skills and experience aren’t willing to give up their personal and family lives in exchange for a promotion and title. What motivated the Baby Boomers doesn’t motivate Gen X and Gen Y.

In addition to lack of skills, a leadership shortage is all but a done deal. When the Baby Boomers finally decide to slow down or retire, pure demographics will stall the succession. Gen X, the succeeding generation, is little more than half the size of the Boomers. And many Gen X and Gen Y are putting family before careers.



One more glitch: while three to five years may not be enough time to develop the next generation of leaders, it might also be too long in a competitive market. Many talented Gen X are tired of waiting for the Boomers to get out of the way. As the economy is rebounding, job offers will start coming in. It is already happening. Competitors and emerging companies are scouring the job market for talent and your next leader could be their target.

Source: Workforce Trends

Did You Communicate Your Profit Goals

I just finished Ram Charan's book "Profitable Growth" and found as I have with his other books profound wisdom in the art of leadership communication. Although I communicated to my staff over the years the revenue and profit expectations of the company each year I know for a fact other senior managers did not.

In the book, Charan explicitly says that for the comapny to reach its targets it needs every employee engaged in the goal. I know for a fact that this was one of my company's flaws. It really never communicated from the top what was expected, we only heard when we did not make our goals in quarterly meetings.

If you are a true HR leader, you should make sure your CEO is on the same page as Charan expresses. Get everyone involved from the get go and that is how you achieve your goals. All are on a positive slope.

Why Do People Hate HR - A Sobering View

I thought I would revisit this sobering question since all I have been preaching over the last 2 years is how HR should be a strategic business partner and be at the table with the CEO. In addition in my discussions with many HR professionals out of work this issue really comes to light when they have to deal with HR departments when applying for work. Well here is an excerpt from an August 2005 Fast Company article that may open your eyes wide even today (click on the link for the complete article). The issue has not gone away.

In a knowledge economy, companies with the best talent win. And finding, nurturing, and developing that talent should be one of the most important tasks in a corporation. So why does human resources do such a bad job -- and how can we fix it?

Well, here's a rockin' party: a gathering of several hundred midlevel human-resources executives in Las Vegas. (Yo, Wayne Newton! How's the 401(k)?) They are here, ensconced for two days at faux-glam Caesars Palace, to confer on "strategic HR leadership," a conceit that sounds, to the lay observer, at once frightening and self-contradictory. If not plain laughable.

Because let's face it: After close to 20 years of hopeful rhetoric about becoming "strategic partners" with a "seat at the table" where the business decisions that matter are made, most human-resources professionals aren't nearly there. They have no seat, and the table is locked inside a conference room to which they have no key. HR people are, for most practical purposes, neither strategic nor leaders.

I don't care for Las Vegas. And if it's not clear already, I don't like HR, either, which is why I'm here. The human-resources trade long ago proved itself, at best, a necessary evil -- and at worst, a dark bureaucratic force that blindly enforces nonsensical rules, resists creativity, and impedes constructive change. HR is the corporate function with the greatest potential -- the key driver, in theory, of business performance -- and also the one that most consistently underdelivers. And I am here to find out why.

Why are annual performance appraisals so time-consuming -- and so routinely useless? Why is HR so often a henchman for the chief financial officer, finding ever-more ingenious ways to cut benefits and hack at payroll? Why do its communications -- when we can understand them at all -- so often flout reality? Why are so many people processes duplicative and wasteful, creating a forest of paperwork for every minor transaction? And why does HR insist on sameness as a proxy for equity?

It's no wonder that we hate HR. In a 2005 survey by consultancy Hay Group, just 40% of employees commended their companies for retaining high-quality workers. Just 41% agreed that performance evaluations were fair. Only 58% rated their job training as favorable. Most said they had few opportunities for advancement -- and that they didn't know, in any case, what was required to move up. Most telling, only about half of workers below the manager level believed their companies took a genuine interest in their well-being.

So here is why again:

1. HR people aren't the sharpest tacks in the box. "HR doesn't tend to hire a lot of independent thinkers or people who stand up as moral compasses," says Garold L. Markle, a longtime human-resources executive at Exxon and Shell Offshore who now runs his own consultancy.
2. HR pursues efficiency in lieu of value. Why? Because it's easier -- and easier to measure.
3. The corner office doesn't get HR (and vice versa).
4. HR isn't working for you. Want to know why you go through that asinine performance appraisal every year, really? Markle, who admits to having administered countless numbers of them over the years, is pleased to confirm your suspicions. Companies, he says "are doing it to protect themselves against their own employees,"

The problem, if you're an HR person, is this: The tasks companies are outsourcing -- the administrivia -- tend to be what you're good at. And what's left isn't exactly your strong suit. Human resources is crippled by what Jay Jamrog, executive director of the Human Resource Institute, calls "educated incapacity: You're smart, and you know the way you're working today isn't going to hold 10 years from now. But you can't move to that level. You're stuck."


That's where human resources is today. Stuck. "This is a unique organization in the company," says USC's Boudreau. "It discovers things about the business through the lens of people and talent. That's an opportunity for competitive advantage." In most companies, that opportunity is utterly wasted.And that's why I don't like HR.


I am sure I will really alienate some of my peers with this post but after many years of preaching strategy most HR departments are still stuck in the mud based on the above.


Keith H. Hammonds is Fast Company's deputy editor.

So What Do Leaders Do in Business That Sets Them Apart?

The question I am sure every employee asks is "what makes him a great leader and not me?". Well I know that I asked myself that question when assessing people I have worked for over my career. Well, I think Jack Welch has said it best in his book "Winning". I have always been a fan of Welch and have read all his books and even was a stockholder of GE for many years. In his latest book, "Winning", I think he really articulates what leaders do and after re-reading this book for a 2nd time it finally hit home. So, what leadership knowledge has Jack imparted upon us, here are his eight key points:

1. leaders relentlessly upgrade their team, constantly assessing their progress and evaluating them along the way
2. leaders make sure people breath the vision set, not just see it
3. leaders get into people's skin, through positive energy and optimism
4. leaders establish trust and credit. There is transparency and candor with their style
5. leaders have the courage to make unpopular decisions
6. leaders probe and question how things are done to see additional opportunity or new methodology
7. leaders inspire risk taking
8. leaders celebrate

As I look back on the people who lead the companies I have worked for I can name a few who follow these important guidelines and style of management.  You know who you are, see my blog post on August 6, 2008. 
Also ask yourself does your CEO possess these qualities and if not how does your business rank against the competition. 

Social Networkers Still Love E-Mail

With reports of young people abandoning e-mail to communicate via social networks, Facebook developing its own full-featured Webmail system and predictions that in a few years even business users will have exchanged traditional e-mail for social sites, it would appear that the success of social networks was hurting e-mail usage.



Based on data from customer relationship marketing agency Merkle, time spent with personal e-mail as of fall 2009 was even with the prior year. Nearly three-quarters of respondents spent at least 20 minutes a week e-mailing friends and family.

Merkle also found that social network users check their inboxes more frequently than those who shun social sites.


Merkle noted several reasons for the increased e-mail usage among social users, including demographics and that social site notifications are often sent to traditional inboxes.



Those inboxes, in most cases, are the same ones marketers are trying to reach. A strong majority of social network users surveyed said they used the same e-mail address for their social activities as they gave for permission e-mail marketing campaigns. As networked users check on their updates avidly, they are also putting themselves in the reach of e-mail marketers.

“There is no doubt that social media sites, such as Facebook, YouTube and Twitter, have grown in popularity across demographics,” said Lori Connolly, director of research and analytics at Merkle, in a statement. “Yet, we are seeing consistent social use of the email channel, as well as evidence to support the idea that social networking and email use are actually more related than previously thought.”



Keep up on the latest digital trends. Learn more about an eMarketer Total Access subscription today.