I don't want no satisfaction

Holidays meant I missed this little gem exploring factors informing adaptability to change.

It summarises research suggesting that highly satisfied employees don’t always advocate change. Which seems to me fairly obvious: satisfaction inevitably equates to contentment with the status quo. And that hardly breeds enthusiasm and energy for change.

To me, it’s another reason why exploring employee satisfaction is a complete red herring (don’t even get me started on ‘happiness’). Far better to focus on nurturing a culture that inspires and supports people to keep growing and challenging. To go beyond what’s needed. To look for ways of changing how things are done.

Such spirit doesn’t come from being satisfied, it springs from being dissatisfied – or at least being unwilling to accept that the way things are is the way they should always be. That’s what we need to be inspiring within our organisations, along with the systems and tools that help people turn such restless energy into efforts and activities that align with organisational goals.

Help employees connect with the company mission, strategy and values. Give them clarity on roles and expectations. Keep sharing information and discussing their questions and concerns. And give them the opportunity and autonomy to shape the world they work in.

There’s a lot covered by those 40 words. And no doubt much more besides them. But nurturing a culture along those lines is far more conducive to growth, and the change that’s necessary to spark it, than focusing on satisfaction with the status quo.  

Is technology really that new?

Amid the usual torrent of articles trumpeting some new technology within the workplace, a couple of surveys caught my eye. The first, from PwC and covered by HR Magazine, says more than half of employees believe technology will significantly change the world of work in the next 5-10 years. The second, from Hay, highlights technological convergence as one of the megatrends shaping the future of employee engagement.

Once I had got past the use of the word ‘megatrend’ by Hay (ugh!), I was bowled over by the complete lack of news here. Technology changing the way we work? And offering new opportunities for engagement? Surely not?!

It does not take Sherlock Holmes to see that technology has been re-shaping things for many years. The way we work, the hours we keep, the locations we work from have all become much more varied as a result. The tools we use to engage employees now are, in some cases, very different to those used five or ten years ago. And those tools will evolve again in the next five-ten years. That’s life.

Organisations have coped with this to date, responding to trends (note to Hay: not ‘megatrends’) and harnessing – or at least recognising – how evolving technology can help.  Some cope better than others, and some use technology more effectively than others. All will continue to be courted by new tools purporting to be the answer to their engagement dreams (or nightmares) in the years ahead.

But we must remember the purpose such tools exist to serve. Because however dazzling the range of current options, and the new opportunities that will arise, the principles of engagement remain the same. Every organisation must analyse the role engagement should play within business goals, and then develop a framework to inspire, challenge and support diverse employees to play their part. New technology will have a role. But the framework should harness such tools, rather than being built around them.

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.

The flexibility challenge

The increasing popularity of flexible working across Great Britain has been highlighted this week in a report from the Recruitment and Employment Confederation (REC).  The study – Flex appeal: Why freelancers, contractors and agency workers choose to work this way – says that more than one in three people has worked as a contractor, freelancer or agency worker at some point, and 41% of people are considering working that way in the future.

Increasing flexibility can offer benefits to people on both sides of the working equation. It can help employers introduce more fluidity to their staffing plans as they seek to get the right people, in the right places, at the right time – and can increase their ability to change plans rapidly where needed. It can also give workers, many of whom are now meshing rather than balancing work and home lives, the chance to exercise more control over their short- and long-term assignments.  There is a potential ‘win win’ for everyone involved.

From an employer’s point of view, however, this does bring its challenges.  After all, workers might want flexibility – but customers want cohesion. They neither know nor care whether the people they deal with are temps or ‘lifers’. They just want consistent, top-quality service and will judge the company – and decide the future of their custom – on their experience. So it’s essential that all the workers concerned are engaged and equipped to deliver brand values day in, day out.

The growing array of employment arrangements, patterns and/or locations makes this more difficult. Organisations must connect and communicate with an ever-broader range of people to ensure they understand and can deliver the behaviour needed from them. And this means a more sophisticated approach to engagement may be required: from greater understanding of each group to tailored programmes of activity that inspire spark and sustain the response desired from them. 

As ever, this is not just about sharing information, but also about building dialogue; whether someone is with you for a week or 20+ years, they need the same opportunities to ask questions or raise concerns. They may even bring fresh ideas that long-standing employees would never have thought of.

Flexibility in, cohesion out. It’s a process of increasing importance to employers of all types and sizes. And a more sophisticated approach to engagement holds the key.

Engaging and equipping line managers

Sir Brendan Barber has written an interesting article on the increasing demands being placed on line managers in the workplace. He focuses on how to help them deal with conflict, but his argument has wider ramifications for the way organisations engage and equip managers to play the difficult role expected of them.

Sir Brendan’s contention is that the field of employment relations now centres on individual as opposed to collective rights, and that this places considerable pressure on line managers to focus more closely on the needs, issues and concerns of each team member. This adds to stress and workloads, and leads some managers to feel over-burdened and under-supported. In the face of falling line manager confidence, Sir Brendan believes it might be time to “call in the cavalry”.

You could raise similar concerns over the role managers play within employee engagement. Put simply, they are expected to be all things to all people. Leaders look to them to translate global strategy into local action, and hold them accountable for results. Front-line employees, meanwhile, expect their managers to be their inspiration, support and confidant, empathising with them rather than the company.  Line managers are therefore in a difficult yet pivotal position: they face contrasting (and sometimes competing) demands from employer and employee yet are expected to keep everyone united and pulling in the same direction.

But they are rarely given enough (if any) information and support to prepare them for this role.

As many commentators have observed, organisations don’t spend enough time training and equipping line managers to fulfil their challenging roles. We still tend to promote people based on technical excellence and expect them to immediately adjust to the different (and increasing) demands that come with a management position. In such circumstances, it’s hardly surprising that we see a fall in confidence and a drop in performance.

At the very least, prospective line managers must be trained in the basics of employee engagement before they take up their new role. After all, the way they inspire, challenge and support their new team(s) to perform will be one of the main differentiators from their previous, non-managerial position. From the principles of effective engagement to the skills needed to achieve its benefits in practice, such training can be focused, intense and very practical. But it is essential to give managers at least some guidance and initial experience as they take on their crucial new role. And if Sir Brendan’s call to action on workplace is heeded, this should form one part of a wider overhaul of management training and support...

It's not just about Generation Y...

I can’t help thinking that the recent LBS/Deloitte study on Gen Y is a case of the emperor’s new clothes.

The study “reveals” that 80% of those being classified under the Gen Y banner don’t intend to stay with any one company for more than five years. The report’s authors go on to suggest that employers must re-orientate their ‘employer value proposition’ (got to love that phrase…) and component practices to appeal more to the priorities of this particular group.

Is any of this really news? There has been plenty of research into Gen Y in recent years, and extensive debate over how to inspire, motivate and challenge these employees to play their part. There has been general acknowledgement that employers need to engage Gen Y in different ways. So it’s a fairly well-worn path that LBS and Deloitte have sought to follow, without having an awful lot new to say about the situation or the opportunities/imperatives involved.

I think the bigger question, on which it really would be interesting to have more in-depth research, is how employers can best balance the requirements of different demographic groups such as Gen Y and ‘baby boomers’ to forge a well-oiled, well-integrated workforce. In my view, there’s not enough analysis or insight on this, but it’s an issue that is only going to increase in importance as the balance between different groups within the workplace (however loosely they are defined) continues to shift. 

Creating a single employment proposition that can turn its face and to, and remain credible for, each group is going to be increasingly difficult, perhaps stretching the whole idea to breaking point. Instead, I can see employers articulating an increasing number of audience-specific employment offers, far more than they do today. We may be moving into an era when the employer ‘proposition’ becomes the employer ‘framework’, with a shift from cohesion (inherent in the current EVP concept) to co-ordination.

That’s the area in which employers of all types could benefit from more guidance and research. Focusing on Gen Y alone only tells part of the story. There’s a bigger issue on the road ahead.

Trust matters

The CIPD’s Employee Outlook report, published this week in association with Halogen, suggests that employee trust in senior managers has fallen to a two-year low. It’s the latest in a long line of such studies, stretching over many years, highlighting an erosion of trust that can undermine performance.  

The key factor in this research is that employees do not feel involved in important decisions. Without an opportunity to give input to the organisation they work for, employee confidence and trust fades away. Suspicion about instructions from ‘on high’ pervades.  

Hardly surprising, is it? We all feel more confident in, and committed to, an organisation if we feel we have some involvement in it, that our views and opinions matter. If we’re expected simply to do what we’re told, with no chance to explore or make suggestions, the whole relationship is very transactional. There’s no warmth, little engagement and no chance for ideas from the front-line. And if employees feel they are simply being ‘done to’, why should they give their best? Or bring energy, enthusiasm and discretionary effort to support an employer that sees them simply as a recipient for instruction?

Given this is hardly rocket science, it’s frustrating to see the same type of findings come up again and again. Senior managers in all industries have to grasp the benefits that a more engaging culture can deliver and start implementing simple systems to nurture stronger relationships with their people. There are many simple, practical ways to spark and sustain dialogue with employees, within teams and beyond, to help the organisation work more effectively. After all, you can hardly forge trust in an environment when communication is wholly one-way.  Unless leaders finally respond, they’ll simply see more trust drain from their organisations and leave vast vats of employee potential left untapped.