The Performance Improvement Blog

What's the Future of Diversity Training?

I fear that diversity training is losing favor among senior executives and HR departments. What I’m observing might simply be the natural evolution of a workforce intervention, similar to “quality improvement” which has moved from the province of a few experts to the responsibility of everyone in the organization. According to Billy E. Vaughn writing in DiversityOfficerMagazine.com, diversity training started in the 1960s, during the civil rights era, and was about racism and changing the attitudes of white males towards African Americans. Then, after federal legislation was passed protecting women and minorities, it became primarily about compliance with federal laws and avoiding law suits. The next phase was about inclusiveness in which diversity training was broadened to address breaking down barriers to participation for all people regardless of gender, age, nationality, disabilities, socio-economic background, or sexual orientation.

Now there appears to be a trend, in part driven by cost-cutting and down-sizing, to move away from organized diversity and inclusion programs. Some executives argue that they don’t need a department or an executive dedicated to diversity and inclusion because these values are ingrained in the culture of the organization. Luke Visconti’s column in DiversityInc magazine, titled “Ask the White Guy,” challenges this assumption. He writes:

Once in awhile a company spokesperson will tell us that diversity "is in our DNA." We usually hear that as they disassemble diversity efforts. The only thing in human DNA is to discriminate. It's a part of normal human tribal behavior. That's why you have to manage diversity if you want to extract the best talent, performance, market share and suppliers from a diverse country—and world. Constant management is necessary in a wide range of corporate functions; you would never hear "accounting is in our DNA" or "compliance with the law is in our DNA." Every company has accountants and lawyers, even though they've followed accounting and law practices successfully for decades.

Constant management of diversity and inclusion is necessary.  Part of the reason some companies have moved away from organized diversity and inclusion efforts is that they haven’t been able to justify their investment in diversity and inclusion programs. Joe Gerstandt writes about this in his blog, "Our Time to Act". He says:

The idea of isolating diversity training out by itself to determine if it “works” or not ignores the complexity, the interrelatedness and the uniqueness of organizational culture and ecology.  It is not terribly different from yanking my liver out of my body to determine if it “works” or not.  A lone liver lying on my kitchen table is of no value, but the right liver in the right body can make all the difference in the world.

We have to examine the contribution that training makes to all of the diversity and inclusion efforts that go on in a high performing organization.  I have talked to managers who attribute changes in their attitudes and behavior to experiences they had in diversity training. Of course, it wasn’t only the training that made the difference, but, clearly, training was a contributing factor.

Bill Green, Chairman and CEO of Accenture, in accepting an award from DiversityInc for being one of the top 50 companies in its commitment to diversity , says:

Diversity and inclusion are years past being a program; they are a state of mind in our company. We will take the best people on any terms we can get…in the service business, your assets have   legs and can leave the building. Diversity and inclusiveness have become one of the characteristics of a high performing company and if you intend to compete in the United States and on the global stage you have to be able to embrace it in every dimension.

High performing companies, given a workforce that is becoming more and more diverse in terms of ethnicity, gender, age, education, ability,ideas, and geography, should intentionally manage diversity and inclusion. They should examine everything they do through the diversity and inclusion lens and hold all managers accountable for ensuring that all employees are respected and given every opportunity to contribute and be successful in the organization. 

Employee Survey Data: What's the Secret?

Employee survey data is often collected but not used, at least not in any significant way. It has been my experience with employee surveys that once I have reported my findings to senior management, rarely is anything more done with the data.  They might disseminate a high level summary of the results, but there is little attempt to help employees understand and learn from the data. Not only is that a waste of time, money, and effort, but it’s a waste of an opportunity to improve performance and it erodes trust between management and employees.

We should be making raw data available to employees so that they can tell us what it means. Instead, managers keep the data to themselves as if it belongs to them. I believe employee survey data belongs to the respondents. They answer our questions with the implicit understanding that their answers will be used to make the organization more successful and a better place to work. If it’s their data, then they should be allowed to look at it, manipulate it, and interpret it.

David Zinger, in his employee-engagement blog, writes:

It seems to me that we fear being open about our data and sharing our data with the very people who create it. We can do better – we must do better – if we have an authentic desire to have our data move from a hoarded collection to a vehicle of authentic engagement.

I agree with Zinger that fear is part of the reason why raw data is not shared. Managers fear what the data will say (i.e., make the manager will look bad), what employees will say about the data, and how people outside of the organization will interpret the findings. However, I think that control is another part of the reason. Managers want to be in control and they assume that giving the raw data to employees will diminish their control over the situation. What they don’t realize is that it could have the opposite effect.

Making data more accessible to employees is in line with a plea by Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web, in a Pecha Kucha-style TED presentation (see video). He argues that if people would make data widely available, other people would make sense of it in ways that would add value to that data. This is what we need to do in organizations with employee survey data. We have every reason to believe that if the raw data is available to employees, they will look at it in new and different ways which will contribute to organizational learning and employee engagement.  

New Math

This cartoon by John Junson, that first appeared in The Employee Engagement Network site, takes a humorous look at supervisor-employee feedback. But all too often, this is the message that employees hear from their supervisors, regardless of the actual words said. It's the quickest way to discourage employee commitment and involvement in the organization. Any company that wants employees to be engaged and continuously learning, should pay special attention to what supervisors say and what employees hear.

Temporary Employee Engagement

Business Week calls them the “disposable worker”. These are the temps, contractors, contingent workers, and free-lancers who fill the gaps when a company has a job to do but would rather hire short-term employees than make a long-term commitment to so-called “permanent” employees. It used to be that these temporary workers were the exception; now they are the rule. Estimates are that a quarter of the   workforce could become temporary in the next few years.

Unlike previous recession recoveries, this one will not re-employ large numbers of laid off workers. Because of technology, operational efficiencies, a project focus, and out-sourcing, many companies are finding that they can be more productive with fewer employees. And because of uncertainty about the post-recession economy, they are reluctant to make new hires permanent. Employers have found that they can get the job done by supplementing their regular employees with temps. This gives companies the freedom to increase and decrease their workforce depending on what is needed at the time. With many “disposable workers” being highly trained and competent professionals, often recently laid off from high-responsibility jobs, these employers are usually not lowering the knowledge and skill level when they bring these workers on-board.

However, employers are experiencing a paradox. They want low-cost, transient employees and, at the same time, they want an involved and committed workforce. As companies hire more temporary employees and become more dependent on them as a critical part of the workforce mix, they will have to find ways to build their commitment to high quality work and involvement in the life of the company, in an environment where people are still reeling from mass layoffs, furlough days, and reduced benefits. What do you think employers can do to promote high engagement in the temporary part of a company’s workforce given the current environment?

Rapid Performance Improvement: The Two-Minute Drill

Most organization change efforts fail because they lack clarity of focus, leadership, a sense of urgency, a solid plan, preparation, the right people, the right resources, execution and follow-through, measurement and feedback, and organizational learning. This was the message that I heard from Clinton O. Longenecker in a workshop on “rapid performance improvement.” He cited research by Satya S. Chakravorty, who found that nearly 60% of Six Sigma initiatives do not achieve their intended goals largely because of the absence of these factors.

Longenecker, co-author of The Two-Minute Drill: Lessons for Rapid Organizational Improvement From America’s Greatest Game, argues that organizational change efforts should be like a two-minute drill in   football. Although we tend to over-use sports analogies and many people would disagree that football is America’s “greatest game”, I think the comparison in this case is instructive. The two-minute drill in football is what good teams do when they’re behind in the last few minutes of a game. This set of rapid-fire plays, often with no huddle, takes a great deal of practice. Every team member must have a heightened sense of urgency and focus. When effective, the goal is clear and everyone knows their roles. If the quarterback provides the necessary leadership, the team is often successful in scoring during those final two minutes. So too for change initiatives: they are successful when there is preparation, when there is a sense of urgency, when everyone is clear about intended outcomes, when everyone is clear about their roles, when there is strong leadership, and when progress and results are measured.

I think one of the key reasons why a two-minute-drill approach, whether in football or in organizational change, is often successful is an increase in risk-taking. A football team takes risks in a two-minute drill that they would never take during the regular part of the game. So to organizations, if they want their change efforts to be successful, may have to take risks that they might not otherwise. They have to do things differently, sometimes without knowing what will happen. At the same time, they should not let the intensity of the situation prevent them from checking the scoreboard and learning from successes and setbacks. That is, they should be monitoring progress, measuring results, and providing feedback to team members.

Employee Surveys: How is as Important as What

An epidemic of employee surveys is killing knowledge and wisdom. Fueling this epidemic are two erroneous beliefs: 1) anyone can design and administer an employee survey effectively; and 2) the results of employee surveys are the property of management. I want to address each of these myths and maybe succeed in immunizing a few readers against further spread of the disease.

Myth 1: Anyone Can Do It. Many managers seem to think, “How hard can it be? It’s just a list of questions, followed by a numbered scale. The hardest part is deciding whether to use a three, five, seven, or nine point scale.” (A typical question I get is, “We’re doing a survey; how many points should we have on the scale?”) Unfortunately, commercial online survey services like SurveyMonkey and Zoomerang have contributed to the perpetuation of this myth. In the hands of a professional, these services are extremely valuable tools, but in the hands of a novice, they can cause more harm than good. There is an art and a science to survey design. It takes expertise to design and administer a survey that gives everyone confidence that the responses are valid, reliable, and useful.

I've been reminded of this myth listening to the national health-care reform debate: every day another survey with different results. The explanation is that it depends on how you ask the question, to whom you ask it, and when you ask it. Dalia Sussman’s column in the N.Y. Times talks about how this makes a difference in health-care surveys. The headline for her column says it all:

 
Myth 2: Management Owns the Data. Employees who take the time to thoughtfully fill out a survey in good faith are the real owners of the data. They expect that the results will be interpreted competently and will influence decisions in the organization. It is their data and they deserve to have it respected and used responsibly. This means giving them an opportunity to explain their answers in greater depth than can be measured in a survey. And it means their attitudes and opinions are used in decision-making. If an organization cannot provide an opportunity for feedback and reflection and does not intend to use the data for decision-making, management should not conduct the survey. Otherwise, employees will lose trust in leadership. If the survey is intended to promote engagement, it will have the opposite effect.

A survey can be a very useful tool for assessing employee opinions and attitudes, as well as building employee engagement, but only if it is designed, administered, and followed-up in a professional way. It’s not a job for amateurs! 

Stop Pushing Top Talent Out the Door

The tendency of some managers in a recessionary economy is to revert to a command-and-control style of leadership. This is risky business. Those managers risk creating a suboptimum work environment and driving out their top talent. Study after study provides evidence that employees perform best and stay longest when their bosses are respectful, listen to employees, and support high levels of engagement.

I understand why the command-and-control style increases when companies are laying off workers, closing plants, and reducing benefits. Under stress, human beings naturally perceive a restricted range of options. Under these circumstances they will do what they believe is easiest and safest within a limited range. For managers whose role models were command-and-control executives, that style emerges when they feel the stress of a situation with few good options. And the command-and-control, my-way-or-the-highway style is a defense against having to deal with the emotional side of work relationships, which, in a bad economy, can make managers feel vulnerable, whether they are aware of these feelings or not.  

Gill Corkindale, in her Harvard Business Review blog post titled, “Why Good People Skills Matter in a Recession”, offers excellent guidelines for managers who want an engaged and high performing workforce. One guideline that stands out for me is:

Ensure that you have good training and development programmes in place — these are a good investment for the future and will pay dividends when the organization has come through the recession. Coaching and mentoring also foster self-reliance and self-worth, which are important factors when it comes to keeping motivation high.

This is great advice. As I have written before, a poor economy is no time for companies to disregard the development of their employees. Attracting, training, and retaining talent will be the primary role of managers in the second decade of the 21st Century. First of all, many of the best employees are thinking about jumping ship as soon as the economy improves and other companies start hiring again. If you want to keep your top talent, you need to do something now. Secondly, companies are learning how to produce more with less people. This demands that every employee develop to their fullest. Third, learning must be continuous; the world is changing too fast for any employee to let learning stagnate. Fourth, many employees, especially those from the youngest generation of workers, are heavily motivated by the opportunity to learn and develop new competencies. To hang on to those folks, companies will have to provide high quality training, coaching, mentoring, and tools for self-directed learning.