The Performance Improvement Blog

Age of Creativity and Empathy

According to Daniel Pink, author of A Whole New Mind: Why Right-Brainers Will Rule the Future, we have moved from the “information age” at the end of the last century to the “conceptual age” at the beginning of the 21rst century. At the PopTech 2007 meeting, he argued that there has been a shift from an emphasis on left-brain thinking to an emphasis on right-brain thinking. Of course, he is on the side of right…brain, that is. He would say that he is left-brain, but given his penchant for pecha-kucha, you could’ve fooled me.

Pink says that this is the age of creators and empathizers; that these are the kinds of workers our economy needs. Western companies are competing with Asian workforces that can do any routine work more cheaply. This means that Western workers have to compete on the basis of creativity and innovation. I heard Pink, along with John Hine, Senior Director of Organization Development and Learning for ConAgra Foods, and Catherine Rezak, co-founder of Paradigm Learning, talk about these ideas as part of a Training Magazine webinar last week.  

John Hine described how ConAgra is applying these ideas to their leadership development programs. He   said that they make the training playful, use simulations of business situations, and make the experiences meaningful for learners by mapping the connections of what they are learning to the “big picture”. This approach taps into the right-brain thinking of employees.

While I find this right-brain perspective on the workforce to be fascinating and appealing, it is also scary. What does this mean for people who are not predominately right-brain thinkers? Will they be unable to compete for jobs because they don’t think this way, can’t think this way, or, because of economic circumstances, cannot learn to think this way? What happens to them? And what happens to the jobs that require an emphasis on left-brain thinking? Will we have a preponderance of people who are creative and innovative but nobody to implement projects that produce high quality work on-time and within budget? Is there no place in the West for workers who want to manufacture goods? 

Job Seekers Make Career Development Opportunities a Priority

Job seekers put a high priority on career development opportunities when looking for employment. Career development is more important to a large percentage of job seekers than compensation and benefits, work culture, and work/life balance. At the end of last year, 1,363 U.S., Canadian, and Latin American Linkedin members responded to a survey posted by Right Management that asked them, "What is most important when considering a new employer?" By far, the most important reason of five options given was “career development prospects.” The ranking by percentage of respondents selecting each item is:

1.      Career development prospects (40%)

2.      Work/life balance (21%)

3.      Innovative company culture (15%)

4.      Competitive compensation and benefits (12%)

5.      Good rapport with manager (8%)

George Herrmann, Executive Vice President of Americas at Right Management, talks about the implications of this ranking for managers:

Managers who take the time to learn what's important to their team members are in the ideal position to help bring employee and organizational goals together. Better alignment will result in greater contribution and career satisfaction, leading to improved employee engagement – all of which ultimately impacts the bottom line.

I agree with Herrmann about alignment of employee and organizational goals and the critical role of managers in making this happen. Even though “rapport with manager” is ranked relatively low as a criterion for employer selection, we know from other research that it ranks very high in terms of employee engagement and clarity of performance goals. Employees depend on their managers for learning and advancement opportunities. When that doesn’t happen, they feel stymied in their progress. This is more evidence of the importance of implementing the 5As Framework about which I have written previously.

Of course, the caveat to all of this is that it is a year since Right Management  conducted the survey of Linkedin members and employment opportunities for most of those respondents are probably much worse now than they were then. The most important reason for selecting an employer today is probably: has a job opening.

New e-Book for Getting Business Results from Training

Getting business results from training, or any learning intervention (for example, coaching) for that matter, often has more to do with organizational issues than it does with design and delivery of the learning event. Learning professionals have become very good at creating powerful learning experiences for participants. Yet, the number of participants who apply this learning to achieving important business results for their organizations is still quite small. Some researchers put that number in the 10% to 20% range. 

Sean Murray, CEO of RealTime Performance, and I want to increase that number. We have identified five organizational factors that contribute to the impact of learning interventions. We believe that when learners and managers of learners attend to these factors, it is much more likely that training will contribute to business success. These factors are: 

1. Alignment: Align learning with strategic goals.
2. Anticipation: Anticipate success.
3. Alliance: Create a learning alliance between learner and boss.
4. Application: Apply learning immediately.
5. Accountability: Hold learner and organization accountable for business results.

These factors make up what we call the "5As Framework". You can read more about this framework in our new e-book, Getting More From Your Investment in Training: The 5As Framework. The e-book also has valuable tips and tools you can use to get more impact from your training programs. You can download the first two chapters free or you can purchase the whole e-book at the RealTime Performance Web site. Let us know what you think.

Attention Deficit in the Workplace

We live in a world of distraction. Cell phones are always with us and always on. Blackberrys and iPhones constantly tell us, "You've got mail." News is 24/7. Whoever survived downsizing is supposed to do the jobs of two or three people. TWD (texting while driving) has become so prevalent there is a name for it and legislation against it. Open space offices, although designed to promote creativity and teamwork, also increase interruptions and stimulate a chaotic work environment. No doubt, some people thrive in this kind of environment, but for many others it is detrimental to their productivity and health.

According to Geri Markel, there are eight demons that contribute to distraction in the workplace. She writes:

In this 24/7 world, the lines between work and life are blurred and distractions interrupt and interfere with performance. Labeled as demons, there are eight types of distraction that negatively affect attention, memory, organization, executive function, and critical thinking.

The eight demons of distraction include technology overload, interruption by others, over-scheduling and inappropriate multitasking, noisy or messy [work] space, stress, fatigue, illness or medication, and unruly mind.

What Markel means by an "unruly mind" inlcudes hyper-attention to one thing at the expense of everything else, constant daydearming, or a racing thought process.

Markel says these demons can be managed, but it requires a plan, a strategy, tools, feedback and support from others, and, I would add, determination. Markel's book offers some methods and tools for getting these demons under control and using them to their advantage. The goal is to become more attentive, less stressed, and more successful. We could all use that!

Hire for Skill or Hire for Character?

When Bill Maher asked Bill Bradley why the New York Knicks keep losing, the Senator said that it’s because they look for players with skill instead of character. I think this is what many organizations do when they hire employees. They look for people who already appear to have the experience and competencies needed for a specific job rather than people who have the attitude and temperament to fit into the culture of the business. If companies are going to make it successfully through this economy, they must have employees who have a positive attitude and can learn from and adapt to continuous change and uncertainty. This is no time for the weak-of-heart. Weathering this recession will require a commitment and resiliency beyond what is required in a growth environment.

Employees who have character can learn whatever they need to learn to help the business be successful. Keith McFarland in the article he wrote for BusinessWeek titled “The Right People vs. Getting the People Right", argues that it is the business leader’s job to help people develop into successful team members. He writes:

I think way too much has been made of this "right people" idea, and today some leaders use it as an excuse for their companies' poor performance. After all, as I like to ask the leader who blames his company's travails on the lack of right people, how did those wrong people get there in the first place? The typical reluctant response? "Well, I hired them."

Every employee should have a development plan and it is the company’s responsibility to invest in that plan to move the employee to the level of skill needed to help the business grow out of the current slump. But don’t let people flounder while not giving them every opportunity to succeed. Especially now, companies can’t afford to be cavalier about their most important resource.

R. L. Polk & Co., University of Michigan, Comerica, NSF International Receive HR Award

Four Michigan employers received the prestigious 2009 Arbor Awards for Excellence in recognition of their innovative human resource strategies that are helping to build Michigan’s emerging knowledge-based economy. The awards were presented March 12 at The Ritz-Carlton in Dearborn, Michigan.

R. L. Polk & Co., a global company that specializes in automotive information and marketing solutions, is pioneering new methods of recruiting Gen X and Y, high-tech talent using social media strategies such as chat rooms, Facebook, Twitter and a robust internship program. Their philosophy is to “Hire slow. Hire tough,” taking two to three months or longer to make the right hire. As a result of Polk’s recruiting strategy, employee recruitment, retention, and satisfaction have increased dramatically. Named as a “Cool Place to Work” by Crain’s Detroit Business in 2007, 86.5% of employees surveyed recently would recommend Polk as a place for employment.

University of Michigan employs more than 27,000 people involved in higher education, research and health care who have serious challenges communicating with their leaders. Voices of the Staff is an award-winning initiative that annually involves 120 people from all areas of the university and health system in sharing their ideas and concerns with President Mary Sue Coleman and top administrators. This “bottom-up” communications initiative has been successful in contributing to major changes in the University and to improving employee engagement.

Comerica Bank, a subsidiary of Comerica Incorporated, has a business footprint across five states: Arizona, California, Florida, Michigan and Texas, with select businesses operating in several other states, as well as Canada, China and Mexico. In 2006 Comerica invested in HR by building its HR Academy, an internal service and career development learning center for human resource professionals at every level of the organization. More than 130 HR colleagues (40% of whom were new in 2006), have participated in the HR Academy’s virtual learning program that, among other benefits, enables HR professionals to build contemporary HR competencies, a personal career plan, and a deeper business skill set.

NSF International, a nonprofit global public health and safety certification organization based in Ann Arbor, is expanding its business by listening to its employees at all levels and functions in the organization. Employee Innovation Teams engage employees in idea generation, ensuring that anyone with a good idea is heard, and then evaluating their ideas for their market potential. Employees’ ideas are being implemented with a positive effect on NSF’s bottom-line. For example, employee ideas have resulted in a new Toy Safety Program and the new “Smart Choices Program,” alerting consumers to smarter food choices while shopping.

The Arbor Awards for Excellence, which recognizes best practices and innovation in human resources, is sponsored by The Arbor Consulting Group, Inc., a national human resource management consulting firm based in Northville, Michigan and by Eastern Michigan University, Master of Science HR/OD Program. This year marks the 10th anniversary of the award.

“As Michigan employers face unprecedented challenges, the strategic leadership role of human resources professionals has never been more important,” says Joan Moore, J.D., SPHR, president of The Arbor Consulting Group, Inc. “If we are to succeed in moving to a knowledge-based economy, we need to invest in the development of our greatest asset, our people. HR plays a key role in attracting and developing Michigan’s talent pool. We have strong leadership in the field of human resources in Michigan and, as our Arbor Award winners demonstrate, these talented professionals can help make the difference in our state’s success.”

Employee Engagement Across Generations

Boomers (born between 1946 and 1964) live to work; Millennials (born after 1980) work to live. At least, that’s what the popular media seems to be suggesting. But this is a huge over-generalization of what is important to these different generations. Some things are motivating to all employees, whether they are Traditionalists (born between 1928 and 1945), Boomers, Xers (born between 1965 and 1980), or Millennials. Roberta Matteson, in her blog Generation Integration, offers five things that companies can do to engage all employees, regardless of age, in their work.

1. Provide opportunities to do interesting work.
2. Offer flexible work options so employees can on-ramp and off-ramp as life events dictate changes.
3. Adjust your benefit plans to reflect the needs of your population.
4. Encourage collaboration-Think mentor programs and reverse mentor programs.
5. Pay competitive wages. Don't believe everything you hear. Money still matters and it does so now more than ever with the rising cost of fuel, food and debt.

It's refreshing to read that there are things that are the same for all employees across the generations. No doubt age affects some individual differences, but many motivators affect each employee in similar ways. And at a basic psychological level, all workers become more engaged when they experience mutual respect, a sense of control over their lives and careers, and meaning in what they do.

What generational similarities and differences have you observed among employees of these different age groups?

How To Do A Layoff Right

As American automobile makers contemplate whether to comply with the U.S. Congress’s requirements for a bailout package, we can be fairly certain that downsizing and layoffs throughout the car industry will continue. The ripple effect as well as the depressed global economy will cause many businesses to resort to layoffs as a way to balance revenue and costs. Hopefully, execs will consider all other alternatives first, but if more layoffs are absolutely necessary, then they should know that there is a right way and a wrong way to do it.

Guy Kawasaki offers some excellent suggestions to CEOs who are in this situation. These are his headings. Each deserves a closer look.

1. Take responsibility.
2. Cut deep and cut once.
3. Move fast.
4. Clean house.
5. Whack Teddy.
6. Share the pain.
7. Show consistency.
8. Don’t ask for pity.
9. Provide support.
10. Don’t let people self-select.
11. Show people the door.
12. Move forward.

A few comments about this list. Kawasaki implies a #13: “Don’t hide.” He wrote that the worst thing a CEO can do after a layoff is avoid employees. The surviving employees need confidence that their leader is in control and that, together, they will survive the downturn.

I disagree with what Kawasaki says about Number 3, “Move fast.” He said that within an hour after a meeting to discuss possible layoffs, the word will have spread around the company. Actually, the word will spread within minutes after the meeting, given the iPhone/Blackberry age in which we work. And in the time between that meeting and any general announcement, employees will spread rumors that make the situation sound worse than it is.

“Clean house” means using layoffs as an opportunity to move out employees who are not doing a good job or won’t help you going forward. This is being strategic about layoffs and not simply making across-the-board cuts where you risk eliminating valuable, knowledgeable talent and keeping low performers.

“Whack Teddy” is about including in the layoffs employees who were hired because of who they know, not what they can do. If these employees are not included in layoffs, everyone else will assume that competence doesn’t count in the company and that will affect their engagement and performance.

What's a Boomer to Do?

Boomers, those post-war babies born between roughly 1946 and 1964, are beginning to hit retirement age in large numbers with potentially as much as 30 years of productive living still ahead of them. Tamara Erickson, author of Retire Retirement: Career Strategies for the Boomer Generation, and Marc Freedman, author of Encore: Finding Work That Matters in the Second Half of Life, would have us believe that all of us can find new, fulfilling work in those later years. I wish it were as easy as they make it sound.

I agree with them that many Boomers do not want to quit working and many want to contribute to their communities in some significant way . A few will find opportunities that fit both desires. However, I think there are at least three conditions that fly in the face of Erickson's and Freedman's very optimistic view of opportunities for Boomers, particularly those over 60. First of all, given the current economic conditions, the opportunities are constricting daily. Large companies in all sectors are laying off workers or not hiring, and small companies are not growing as fast as they had hoped. Companies and nonprifts are finding ways to do more with less; technology is making this possible. Second, because of the market, retirees and people near retirement either do not have the savings and investments or fear that they won't have the savings and investments to take the risk to make a change in their careers. They are doing whatever they can to hang on to their current sources of income. Third,starting a new career and, especially starting a business, takes tremendous internal strength, persistence, energy, and time, all of which are in short supply among Boomers. Not many at that age, or any age for that matter, have the fortitude to learn a totally new job or grow a new business. And even if they could start a business, the odds are against them that they will succeed.

I commend the individuals who, in their 60s, have found a new, meaningful job rather than retire, or have found a place as a needed volunteer in a nonprofit organization, or have taken a risk and started an exciting new business. I am in awe of these people. But most Boomers don't see these as options nor do they have the temperment and resources to make them happen.

Performance Review: For and Against

Performance reviews, that annual, compulsory meeting between supervisor and supervisee to discuss the individual's accomplishments during the past year , are the bane of all employees. Sam Culbert wrote in the Wall Street Journal that performance reviews are so bad that we should stop doing them altogether. He wrote:

Instead of stimulating corporate effectiveness, they lead to just-in-case and cover-your-behind activities that reduce the amount of time that could be put to productive use. Instead of promoting directness, honesty and candor, they stimulate inauthentic conversations in which people cast self-interested pursuits as essential company activities.

Culbert makes some legitimate points about the failings of performance reviews. However, I don't think the problem is performance reviews, per se; it is that they are often done poorly and in a negative context. Rather than throw out the performance review, we should change the way it is typically done. Sean Murray, in his blog post, Performance Review vs. Performance Preview, offers some good alternatives. Taking the cue from Culbert, Murray highlights two ways to improve the process: 1) supervisor and supervisee should enter the meeting with the same expectations for what will be discussed; and 2) the emphasis should be on setting supervisee goals and deciding what each of them will contribute towards achieving those goals.

When supervisor and supervisee do not have shared expectations and do not set mutually agreed to goals for the following year, all of the problems described by Culbert can occur. But much of that is because supervisors/managers have not learned how to give feedback effectively. Nobody teaches supervisors/managers how to do an effective performance review. They learn from their supervisors, including all of the painful ways in which those supervisors conducted or avoided conducting performance reviews.

Performance feedback is a process, not an event. Supervisors should use every opportunity to give feedback to their supervisees. This feedback should be both positive and negative, although the ratio should be much more positive than negative. This feedback should be given early and often, with the formal performance review meeting occuring as one element of that ongoing process.

One of the major reasons for requiring performance reviews at all is because it ensures that at least once a year supervisors and supervisees talk about performance. Otherwise, many employees would never receive any performance feedback and wouldn't know how they are viewed by their bosses and what they need to do to improve and be successful in the organization. We need to do more to make sure that giving and receiving feedback (and reflecting on that feedback) is a continuous process for everyone.