The Performance Improvement Blog

Employee Morale in the Time of Recession

We can be sure that the current economic conditions, globally and locally, are contributing to low worker morale. Many employees are afraid they will lose their jobs. If not their jobs, then they are afraid of losing their pensions and health care and not being able to retire when they had intended. If they have already survived massive layoffs, then they are depressed about the loss of friendships and uncertainty about their future with the company. What can executives do to stem this tide of anxiety and fear? Kelley Holland in her NYTimes column writes that team-building activities, family days, volunteer work with local nonprofits, and other feel-good programs are being used to try to improve workers’ attitudes. She points out in her article that rah-rah group activities, while fun in the short-run, do not necessarily improve results over the long-run.

To really make a difference in employee engagement in these scary economic times, including keeping the talent that you want, more attention needs to be placed on organization culture and less on team-building events. First thing to do is communicate. Keep employees informed. Most employee anxiety comes from not knowing. Even if you don’t have answers, be honest and tell employees at all levels what you know and what you don’t know about the future of the company. Be trustworthy. When you say you are going to do something, do it; be consistent and fair with everyone. And encourage managers to support employee learning. Managers and direct reports should be having frequent conversations about training and development, opportunities in the company, and how employees can contribute to the success of the company. You will want all employees prepared for the turnaround.

These are the things that have always been important to do but are even more critical during the current economic downturn. Isolated team-building and feel-good events are not sufficient for engagement and high performance. Creating a culture in which employees are kept informed, managers are viewed as trustworthy and fair, and employees are collaborating with managers on their development and effectiveness will make all the difference over time.

Anticipation: Expecting Learning and Success

Anticipation is another key factor that affects the success of any learning intervention. Anticipation means having an expectation that I will have a positive learning experience and that I will be able to do something with that learning that will improve my performance and the performance of my organization. These positive attitudes are critical for learning.

The research is very clear about this: what we expect of others and what others expect of themselves shapes their behavior, positively and negatively. Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobson demonstrated this in their classic Pygmalion-effect study of teacher expectations of students’ abilities. In their experiments, students whose teachers were told that they were smart performed better than students whose teachers were told that their students were not smart. Jane Elliott, in a classroom exercise, found that her students and then later, many adult workers, discriminated against each other simply based on whether they were separated into the brown-eyed, privileged group or the blue-eyed, disparaged group. This showed that expectations shape discriminatory behavior. Rhona Weinstein, in her book, Reaching Higher: The Power of Expectations in Schooling, describes how expectations of teachers, as well as attitudes communicated by the school system, have a strong effect on student learning.

We want employees participating in learning interventions anticipating that they will learn and that they will be able to apply this learning effectively in their work. And we want their supervisors and senior management to communicate to them the expectation that they will learn from the intervention and that this learning will have a positive impact on strategic priorities of the organization. When learners and their supervisors anticipate success, it is more likely that success will be the outcome.

Alignment: Linking Learning to Business Goals

Alignment is one of five key factors in the success of any learning intervention (See blog post.). The learning tool, whether that is training, coaching, internship, etc., has maximum impact when it is aligned with the business priorities of an organization. Like the archer who must have clear sight from bow to target, learners (and other stakeholders) must be clear about how the learning intervention will help them hit the goal. For example, there is alignment when content and process of a diversity workshop contributes to attracting, retaining, and promoting all people, regardless of race, ethnicity, and background (assuming that is the organization’s goal).

Alignment is not static. The UK’s Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) studies the mechanisms that affect training, learning, and development of people in organizations. They drew this conclusion about alignment:

The pursuit of alignment gives a clear direction to learning, training and development and ensures that a drift away from the strategic priorities of the organisation does not occur…Alignment is both an outcome and a process. Alignment to a specific strategic or operational objective can be seen as an ‘outcome’ – something which is time-bound and measurable. On the other hand changes and developments in organisational priorities which occur in the fast-moving competitive environment in which many organisations operate means that alignment is also an ongoing process rather than a simple ‘one-off’ outcome.

According to the CIPD, it’s not enough to be able to describe the link between learning and results, one also needs to monitor and continuously improve this alignment over time and make adjustments as business priorities change.

Alignment is not about the training, per se, it’s about what the organization as a whole needs to do to ensure that learners contribute to achieving strategic priorities. If I work for a hotel, how is what I’m learning today going to contribute to an increased occupancy rate? If I work for a bank, how is what I’m learning today going to contribute to an increase in deposits? If I work for a furniture manufacturer, how is what I’m learning today going to contribute to increased sales of office systems? When learning is aligned with strategic priorities it’s more likely that important business goals will be achieved, operational performance will improve, time and money for learning will be used efficiently, and talent will be developed over the long term.

Automaker Bailout and Culture Change

President-Elect Obama said that the American car companies must “reform bad management practices.” Noted car company analysts have said that the industry needs a culture change. When I think of changing management practices and organization culture, I think of Edgar Schein’s definition of culture: the values, basic assumptions, beliefs, expected behaviors, and norms of an organization. Culture is all aspects of organizational life that affect how people think, feel, and act. Nothing that I’ve heard so far about the bailout package (excuse me, “bridge loan”) for GM and Chrysler will change the culture and management practices of these companies. In fact, there is a real possibility that they will just do more of the same: put more pressure on suppliers to decrease costs; put more pressure on unions to reduce wages and benefits, especially legacy costs; and make only cars and trucks that deliver maximum profit. Real change that will make these companies competitive, sustainable, and admired will only come about through a transformation in how they do business (See How: Why we do anything means everything… in business (and in life), by Dov Seidman). How the auto companies relate to key stakeholders is the place to start. At least four kinds of relationships need transformation.

• First is the relationship of manufacturers to customers. Autos must stop giving customers what the companies can design and build at a certain profit and start giving customers what they want and need. Nobody wants fuel inefficient cars that don’t perform and don’t look much different from what we drove 20 years ago.
• Second is the relationship of management to suppliers. A study by Booz & Company and Russel Reynolds Associates points out the need to shift from an adversarial relationship, which most leaders in the industry recognize is counter- productive, and switch to a cooperative relationship in which information and competencies are shared for the good of the customer.
• Third is the relationship between management and unions. This, too, has to become one of cooperation and win-win negotiations. They need each other. They must not wait for contract renewals; this relationship must be built on trust, over a long period of time, with the goal being a competitive, sustainable, admired company.
• And fourth is the relationship between supervisors and their direct reports. All employees, from management to hourly, must be constantly learning. Change is happening too fast to not always be acquiring new knowledge and skills and developing one’s ability to help the company be successful. Supervisors are critical in this relationship. They must be guiding, coaching, and holding individuals and teams accountable for learning.

If GM, Chrysler, and Ford change these four kinds of relationships in the way I have described, they will have transformed their cultures and the way they manage. Of course, these companies are large, complex systems that are, as is evident in the current problems with the U.S. economy, interdependent with many other large, complex systems. Even dramatically changing relationships with customers, suppliers, unions, and employees will not be sufficient to prevent their demise, but neither will the infusion of loan money. However, without a change in culture, they have no chance at all.

From Training Events to a Learning Culture

TrainingZone reports that Martyn Sloman is stepping down from his position with UK’s Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. CIPD has been and continues to be a rich source of research and thinking about improving human performance in organizations, in large part due to the work of Sloman. With help from Victoria Winkler, he wrote a final paper about the field, pulling together many years of CIPD research studies. Sloman’s conclusion is:

Training should no longer be seen as a discrete set of activities around a course or similar event. The activities required to bring about more effective learning must involve the wider HR and management community; they do not just lie in the domain of the trainer. The job is no longer centered on what happens in the training room – though off-the-job classroom training still has an important role to play. Instead the learning, training and development professional must address and overcome a series of interrelated organisational challenges and thus create a more effective learning culture.

It is this “learning culture” for which organizations should be striving. Sloman is saying that training is only one element of this culture. Training courses and events alone have never been particularly effective. Over the past 50 years, estimates have ranged from only 10% to 50% of learners continuing to apply new knowledge and skills to their jobs after a very short period of time, even while the quality of the content and delivery of training events have improved markedly. Clearly, organizational factors outside of training events are barriers to application of learning. This is not tolerable, especially in this time of economic contraction when all resources must be used efficiently and effectively. We need to focus on developing a learning culture, not only delivering great training events.

Auto Company Transformation

As of this morning, GM and Chrysler are very close to receiving a "bridge loan" from taxpayers, although Senate republicans might still block a vote. My questions is, "Will these companies be any different substantially at the end of March 2009, when they must present a detailed plan to a Car Czar. According to the news media, the legislation would make $14 billion available to GM and Chrysler (Ford is not requesting assistance at this time.), restrict compensation packages to top executives, keep jobs in the U.S., and create a plan that will make them financially viable (i.e., reduce costs; increase profit) in the long-run.

This is all well and good, but unless these companies address employee workplace performance and the training and development of all employees, all they are doing is re-arranging the deck chairs. To be competitive, these companies need workers who are innovative, constantly learning and changing, and willing to take risks with their ideas. The automakers need work environments that nurture and motivate people to do their best, to provide great customer service (internal and external customers), and help their companies continuously improve. Nothing I've heard about the legislation addresses these requirements of a 21rst Century workforce. I want to know (given it's my money) what GM and Chrysler will be doing differently to prepare management and union workers for the new corporate direction.

Pecha Kucha: Beyond PowerPoint

Death by PowerPoint is a terrible way to go. I have posted before about problems with PowerPoint. I'm very pleased to see that people are using alternative ways to present their ideas and communicate information to large groups of people. One of these techniques is Pecha Kucha. I became aware of this presentation format from an article in ISPI's online newsletter, PerformanceExpress. Then I discovered that thousands of people around the globe are already using Pecha Kucha. This is the story of my life when it comes to new technology: always a little late in the game. But better late then never.

Pecha Kucha is essentially 20 visually interesting slides about any topic, each given a 20 second explanation, totalling six minutes and forty seconds. Daniel Pink does a nice job of explaining Pecha Kucha and demonstrating its use. See his presentation on YouTube:

One of the interesting applications of Pecha Kucha is suggested by David Zinger at his blog. He shows how a variation of the technique can be used to present a very creative bio. What a great way for people to tell their stories! I don't know if it replaces a resume entirely, but it sure is an effective way to leave a lasting impression with a prospective employer or client. I just hope that the technique does not become overused and I have to write about "Death by Pecha Kucha."

Automakers, Bailouts, and Restructuring

The “Big Three” auto CEOs drove to Washington, D.C., hat in hand, and pleaded for $34 billion from Congress. U.S. taxpayers will have to do something for these companies, given the number of jobs that could be lost, but I think the auto execs (including the UAW President) and congressional leaders are focusing on only part of the problem, and not the most important part. If these companies truly want to compete and be sustainable in the 21rst century, they will have to do more than layoff employees, close plants, refinance debt, merge with other companies, and make more fuel efficient cars. They will have to become learning companies. I don’t mean companies that train their employees. That’s sooooo last century. I mean companies that have a culture of learning in which change is constant and creativity and innovation are the coin of the realm.

My experience from consulting in these companies is that employee learning and development are equated with classroom instruction and, more recently, eLearning modules. The execs talk about Lean Manufacturing and systems thinking and high performance teams and continuous improvement, but this is all rhetoric. These principles have not been integrated into the day-to-day functioning from the C-suite to the plant floor. They have little in the way of feedback mechanisms to tell them what employees are learning, how they are applying that learning, and what else they need to learn to be effective. They don’t have supervisors who coach, develop, and support the learning of their direct reports. They don’t have an environment that motivates union and non-union workers to do their best and help the company do its best.

Of course, financial problems need to be addressed. But as long as the focus and energy is on monthly sales numbers and quarterly profit, and not on creating a culture in which everyone is constantly learning and improving performance, long term success of these companies is highly unlikely.

Communication Problems in Organizations

“We have a communication problem.” How many times have you heard that as an explanation for project failures, disgruntled employees, or a lack of teamwork in organizations? Aside from the dramatic cases, such as a nurse not telling a doctor that he is about to operate on the wrong leg or a co-pilot not telling the pilot that another plane is on the same landing approach, we rarely know what is meant by “communication problem.” Several colleagues and I decided to find out. Leslie Stambaugh, Jim Stilwell, and I asked 15 organization leaders about the communication challenges they face in their organizations. An analysis of their responses identified nine major categories:

1. Not All Employees Being Kept Informed

The assumption is that the usual modes of communication will send important information to everyone who needs to know and that everyone will receive this information. However, in many organizations, the information doesn’t reach people who are not using those methods of communication on a regular basis (e.g., email that isn’t read by front-line workers).

2. Employees Not Receiving Consistent Messages from Management

Different supervisors are sending different, sometimes conflicting, messages about priorities. This causes confusion and distrust among employees.

3. Employees Not Receiving Timely Messages

Information is not getting to employees when and where they need it. Without vital information at the right time and in the right place, the decision-making process slows and projects are not completed on time or in the best way.

4. The Right Information is Not Being Sent to the Right People

Critical information (e.g., market data) is not being shared among key stakeholders. Top management is not engaging employees who have most of the customer contact in the important decisions of the organization. Employees are not getting important information to management.

5. Expectations are Not Clear

Top leaders do not discuss expectations with mid-level managers. Therefore, they do not have the same expectations nor do they agree on how to reach strategic goals. Because of this, employees do not have clear goals and benchmarks to guide their progress.

6. Plan for the Future is Not Known

Leaders do not discuss their vision for the future of the organization with employees. There is no sense of a shared direction toward which everyone is striving. This does not inspire employees to do their best work.

7. Functional Areas Not Collaborating

Departments/units do not share the information that could help all departments/units achieve common goals. They are competitive rather than collaborative. This limits the capability of the organization as a whole.

8. Employees Not Open with Each Other

Employees do not share information with each other. They do not trust each other. This compromises the productivity of teams, departments/units, and the organization.

9. Communication Hampered by Distance Between Units

Departments/units that are in different locations do not communicate as much and as often as those in close proximity. The distance makes face-to-face meetings harder to arrange and collaboration takes more time.

Even in this age of email, cell phones, text messaging, and Web conferencing, critical communication among leaders, between management and employees, and between departments/units, still does not happen as much and as often as needed.