People are people

I suspect few would have synth-pop legends Depeche Mode down as pioneers of employee engagement. But the more complex that participants in this field try to make it, the more their simple refrain ‘People are people’ appeals.

The articulation and application of labels to groups in the workforce has almost become an industry in its own right. To be fair, it’s not just this profession: many protagonists have helped to light the fire, but we avidly fan the flames. And I’m not sure it’s doing us or our organisations many favours.

Supporters argue that such segmentation helps us make sense of changing workforce needs. Detractors say that it introduces massive generalisations that don’t help anyone.

Cynics might argue that developing new labels provides an opportunity to sell something different.

There’s probably some truth in each case. But I feel that developing labels has become a distraction from our core challenge of understanding and responding to the needs of our particular organisations and their people.   

Let’s get back to some basics and the principles that those boys from Basildon espoused more than 30 years ago. Let’s understand our people as they are. Not through the lens of a label that is foisted upon them.

Five steps to improve employee surveys

One of the reasons employee surveys have been getting a kicking recently (just check out other commentary for evidence) is a lingering perception that organisations won’t act on them. This is unfair – I don’t think anyone spends money on such surveys with the aim of ignoring them – but employers could get far more from them by involving their people in the process. Rather than treating them purely as passive recipients of a questionnaire, organisations should seek ideas and feedback from employees to inspire enthusiasm and advocacy for the exercise. I offer the following suggestions of steps to success.

1.      Involve employees in design – every organisation will have core questions that are repeated every time a survey is run. But don’t stick purely to these questions if they ignore current, pressing issues on which employees want a say. Explore whether there are other areas that you need to cover. Involve an employee panel if you have one, or regular focus groups if you run them. Take soundings from managers or employee representatives. It might identify other issues on which employee views would be valuable and on which questions would inspire them to take part.  

2.     Involve employees in communication – some organisations still follow a ‘hit and hope’ approach to survey implementation, sending out questionnaires supported by generic communication materials. But we’d never do this in any other campaign: we know we need diverse methods to connect and communicate with different employee groups, who prefer to engage with the company in different ways. So ask people in different parts of the organisation how you can best communicate with them and their colleagues regarding the survey. Then shape your communication plan and the tactics involved accordingly.

 

3.     Involve employees as champions – in many other initiatives, it is accepted good practice to seek employee ‘champions’ who can spread the word to colleagues. Yet it’s comparatively rare in connection with employee surveys, despite the benefits it could bring. Why not identify ’influencers’ for your different employee groups and connect with them to explain the aims of the survey. Emphasise that employee feedback can help shape the company, and that the survey is not being done for ‘show’. Ask them to encourage colleagues to take part, because the more voices you hear, the more compelling the evidence will be.

4.     Involve employees in analysis – not in the data crunching itself, but in interpretation of what the numbers really tell you about your organisation. It’s easy to draw conclusions from the centre, or based on a provider’s comparison with other companies, but discussing hypotheses and testing interpretations with employees can be a powerful way of rooting interpretation in the specific circumstances and culture of your particular company.

5.    Involve employees in action planning – finally, keep involving employees as you consider how to address the themes raised by your survey. After all, they have raised the issues: let them help shape the solutions. Creating working parties for different parts of the business, with a cross-section of employees in each, is a good way of spreading ownership of the process and inspiring collective commitment to action.

These are simple steps that would help to establish surveys as an effective part of continuous improvement for everyone in the company, not “yet another initiative” from the centre. As with so many things in the world of engagement, involving employees holds the key.

Avoiding ‘accidental disengagement’

There’s a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth about employee disengagement, isn’t there? If I’ve seen that stat from Gallup once I have seen it a thousand times (you know, the one saying c.70% of the workforce is disengaged). But I take issue with some of the commentary around it. Yes, sometimes there will be major structural and/or cultural issues to address. But there are also smaller things that leaders and managers do, without even realising it, that can have a major impact on the people around them. Here are some tips for avoiding ‘accidental disengagement’.

·       Consider communication style – sharing information is a starting point. Sharing relevant and timely information is even better. But is the style you are using working for your people? Have you explored whether it is connecting with them and helping them process and respond to the information? If not, you might have the best of intentions, but your execution may be letting you down.     

·       Ask questions – some people avoid asking questions for fear of the answers, but others may be trying to be considerate. For example, they might want to keep time employees spend in a briefing to a minimum. But asking questions shows a willingness to seek and hear opinions, to check understanding and/or to discuss issues. Failing to do so suggests the relationship is one-way traffic.

·       Balance tools – there is an ever-growing array of new tools and products to aid communication and collaboration. But whilst you may want to give employees the latest tools to help engage and equip them, don’t lose sight of those who might prefer existing methods or mechanisms. What is empowering for some can be disengaging for others, so getting the right balance is key.

·       Check support – assuming someone has what they need to deliver what’s expected of them – even if, on the face of it, everything seems all OK – can cause frustration and disengagement, meaning that neither you nor the people you are managing get what they need. You might be giving people space when what they want is more support.

·       Discuss training – there are still many occasions on which leaders appoint managers based purely on their technical competence. This can have an unintended consequence if the new manager lacks grounding in communication skills, and his or her behaviour then undermines rather than strengthens team engagement. Both organisations and individuals should recognise the risk and discuss any support that’s needed.

·       Say thank you – research shows just how powerful a simple “thank you” can be. Recognising the time and effort people put into their work can be motivating. Failing to do so has the opposite effect.  

This is just a handful of steps. I am sure there are many more…

Avoid engagement akin to a house built on sand

The Global Benefits Attitudes Survey from Towers Watson puts a spotlight on the link between stress and engagement – but risks sending us the wrong way for potential solutions.

We all know that high levels of stress can be destructive and I’m not sure this survey offers any revelations when suggesting it affects engagement.  Both absenteeism and presenteeism are known phenomena in this context and we have seen the effects explored in many studies in the past.

But what do we do about it? Rebekah Haymes from Towers Watson suggests employers could educate staff on “the benefits of more sleep, physical activity, good nutrition and work-life balance”.

Really? Surely the high levels of stress explored in the survey can lead to lack of sleep and a poor work-life balance in the first place. I’d be pretty peeved if the manager whose excessive demands were placing me under massive pressure and ripping the heart out of my home life started telling me I should go to bed early. 

Ms Haymes is on firmer ground when she hints that effective communication and feedback structures have an important role to play. Reviewing and strengthening processes for sharing information and building dialogue can help to shape the type of open, collaborative culture that enhances engagement and helps reduce stress.

Employers need to consider a range of factors here. These include the way leaders set out and involve people in where the organisation is going (and why). How information on company plans and progress is shared. How teams and individuals are prepared for (and supported in) their roles. How managers seek and respond to questions, ideas and concerns.

Assessing such areas – and taking action where required – can help to create a more involving, engaging and productive culture for employees and leaders alike. It’s not a quick fix, nor a simple solution. Anyone with experience of trying to nurture cultural change will tell you that. But it’s far more likely to have a successful (and sustainable) impact for an organisation - and the people within it – than seeking to educate stressed employees on sleep patterns. Such initiatives may have their place, but only when more fundamental issues have been addressed. In any other context, they will be like a house built on sand.  

Survey seems to be the hardest word

The knives are out for employee engagement surveys. Detractors are speaking out ever-more strongly, criticising the value such surveys deliver and attacking the cottage industry that has sprung up around them. I have been at events where such objections have been strident and impassioned. But are they really fair?

Let me get this straight, I am no apologist for employee engagement surveys. I do think they can be overly complex and, in my view, too many research houses roll out a set methodology to everyone, rather than identifying and pursuing the type of research that best suits a particular organisation and its goals.

But I feel they may be getting a raw deal here.

Surely, the fact that we have research dedicated to employee engagement is a step forward. We now have employers who recognise the importance of the topic, see the difference that it can make to their organisations and want to understand what they can do better. In the days when employee engagement or internal communication were dismissed as distractions from core business, that was never the case. But now, we have research exploring the environment from many different angles, rather than – at most – a few vague questions in a much broader survey.

The large research houses have clearly invested in developing robust methodologies, as is their wont, having seen a commercial opportunity to extend their research expertise into this area. You can’t blame them for that. As highlighted above, I do have concerns over ‘one size fits all’ methodologies, but at least there is now a ready-made range of options for those organisations who want to take action. And I know some have derived useful insights from them.

Of more immediate concern, I think, are the organisations who go ahead and conduct research but then do nothing with it. You know the situation: an organisation launches a survey – with or without a research partner – and tells people it’s a chance to ‘have your say’. People give their time and views – but nothing ever happens. At the very least, as someone who takes part in research, you expect some sort of acknowledgement and feedback, if only to know why certain suggestions won’t be followed up. You’re probably hoping for change in some areas. Instead, you hear nothing as the research findings get filed in the proverbial drawer and left to gather dust.

There may be many reasons behind this this lack of action. Insights might be complex. Actions might be unclear. Resources might be tight. But all of these can be overcome.

Analyse the findings in more depth to crystallise the most powerful insights. Share findings for functions or departments with the leaders there, and get them to create action plans with their people. Identify volunteers to help you make progress on ‘quick wins’. There are many different ways of using the research itself as a catalyst for action, rather than it becoming a roadblock to progress.

In these situations, research really is killing engagement rather than helping it. That’s why, to me, lack of action is the most immediate issue to address. If research is more routinely seen as a launch pad for progress, rather than a self-contained exercise, we’ll see surveys as a practical tool to improve engagement and value them more highly as a result. If research is not approached in this context, it can be more destructive to engagement than not doing anything at all.