Aurora Health Care is saving about $1 million a year by using “float pools,” or an internal pool of nurses, rather than an agency to plug staffing gaps, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Covenant Healthcare has saved about $500,000 by using an internal pool. Meanwhile, The Record in Stockton, California, reports that the new patient-nurse ratio law in California has caused the nursing shortage to spread. Now, not only are hospitals short of nurses, but staffing agencies are as well. Carol Farron, community development director for Lodi Memorial Hospital, says the law “couldn’t have come at a worse time for us.”
Chiquita Elevating Human Resources
The new CEO at Chiquita, Fernando Aguirre, had been told by the board of directors to “put in place a strong leadership team for the future” of the Cincinnati produce company. Aguirre has already made one move. At a January 13 employee meeting, he said, “To make good decisions, we need the right people and the right systems in place. For that reason, one of the first changes I’m making is to have our vice president of human resources, Barry Morris, and our interim chief information officer, Paul Merrick, report directly to me. In the end, we are a business of people, and it’s essential to retain, coach and develop talent. To support our people, we need the right systems and resources to help us achieve our strategy. As CEO, I want to be closely involved in our HR and IT decisions.”
Everything You Thought You Knew About Recognition Is Wrong
W hat has happened to recognition programs in our country today? Once a source of great pride and prestige, formal recognition programs are now perceived as stale and irrelevant by most employees, a by-product of a bygone era. While companies have been investing more money in such programs, their effectiveness in terms of improved morale and performance has steadily declined.
“Always have” doesn’t mean “always should”
Let’s look at a few examples of formal recognition programs that tend to be out of step with the times and preferences of today’s employees:
1) Years of Service. In stable, predictable times, in organizations where employees have a job for life, marking milestones toward retirement makes a lot of sense. Today few, if any, employees take jobs expecting to be there 20 or 30 years later. Some incentive companies are quick to point out that almost every North American company offers length-of-service awards. It’s as if this fact, in and of itself, is some sort of proof that they work.
Just because such recognition programs exist, that doesn’t necessarily mean they are a source of motivation for today’s employees. In one Fortune 500 organization with which I recently worked, over half of all surveyed employees didn’t view years-of-service awards as a form of recognition at all. In another organization, a long-term employee told me they had to go to personnel and demand their 20-year pin! (She showed it to me–it was still in the box.)
In most organizations today, years-of-service awards have become more associated with endurance than performance. They’ve become a badge of honor that “I survived”–all the more so if the organization has experienced a merger or layoff in recent years. Sure, you want to retain your employees–especially your top performers–for as long as possible, but it’s increasingly not the clock they get on their 10-year anniversary that keeps them with the organization and energizes them to do their best work.
Holding celebrations and giving gifts for employee retirements or new-employee orientation are versions of the same thing.
2) Employee of the Month. An equally questionable, although widespread, recognition practice is the employee-of-the-month program. I know of one organization where management periodically announces the employee of the month at the managers’ team meeting, everyone applauds, and then the person in charge says: “If anyone sees George, tell him he was selected for this honor!” More often than not, no one ever does.
We don’t need employees of the month as much as we need employees of the moment, and we need them each day, every day. To select one person from many employees tends to make the majority feel unappreciated at the expense of the one individual who is honored. As a result, the honoree may feel guilty or even embarrassed.
Add to this the unwritten rule that you can’t be selected more than once for the honor, and management ends up scrambling to find someone who hasn’t yet received the award. The selection criteria become skewed and soon the focus is just on finding someone–anyone–to give the award to. Once again, this sends the message to employees that if they just hang in there, they too will eventually be recognized.
3) Attendance Awards. With the onset of flextime, telecommuting and virtual work teams, work is increasingly what we do more than where we are. The technologies of cell phones, e-mail, pagers, Palm Pilots and faxes easily connect us all during designated “working hours,” whenever those may be. In some work environments, with some groups of employees, being physically on the job and on time is critical. These positions are increasingly fewer in number.
Where did recognition programs go wrong?
How did we get to this state of affairs? Recognition efforts in the United States have lagged shifts in employee preferences for several reasons. First, companies look backward to “what we’ve done,” thus making their evaluations of programs historical rather than current. They don’t take the time and make the effort to determine existing employee preferences. Companies tend to be reactive rather than responsive to what motivates today’s employees, looking to change or improve things only when there’s overwhelming evidence that what they’re doing isn’t working. If other organizations are continuing with similar formal recognition programs, the status of such programs is perpetuated, even as they become stale, stagnant and irrelevant.
Second, the $27 billion-plus incentive industry, with its focus on moving merchandise and promoting expanded expenditures on existing recognition programs, hasn’t helped the situation. The incentive industry has not picked up on what’s really important to employees today and is more focused on continuing to move and customize merchandise, awards and plaques than on motivating employees or improving performance. Once a program has been budgeted, it’s easy for an organization to continue that funding year after year. It’s difficult to stop and reassess whether the money is being spent wisely, or even if there is any return at all.
Third, the fact that employee values and expectations have changed has amplified the disconnect that exists today. Today’s employees expect to have more meaning in their jobs from their very first day of work, more involvement in their jobs, more thanks when they do good work, more flexibility in their working hours and more balance between their work and personal lives. Recognition practices have not kept up with these changed employee expectations.
“Too many mugs”
Consider merchandise awards. Often the stuff that employees are given to motivate them has become a joke. In other instances, it has become an outright insult. Sure, the first coffee mug you get for finishing a project is nice, but how many coffee mugs does one person need? Same with pens, T-shirts and even certificates of appreciation. Just yesterday I was reviewing employee focus group comments on the topic of recognition from a large client I am working with and noted that the employees were very clear about what they did not want:
“No pens, pen sets or watches”
“No clocks, paperweights or T-shirts”
“Too many mugs”
From the employee perspective, trophies, plaques, nominal gifts and mementos all fall into the same category. And printing your organization’s logo on the merchandise doesn’t magically transform it into something of unique value, especially if the object is something that the employees could have purchased themselves anyway.
Incidentally, a note to the incentive industry: Please stop confusing automation with innovation. Offering “point programs” online helps more efficiently administer existing recognition programs, but it doesn’t make them more effective, nor mean that they should be done at all! It doesn’t help much to save companies time and money if what they’re doing are the wrong things.
Recognition: Not what it used to be
Companies have to break the bad habit of recognizing employees only by occasionally giving them stuff. They must realize that for most employees, most of the time, how they’re treated on a daily basis matters more to them and most effectively communicates that they are trusted and respected, and that they are important.
Even traditional forms of recognition such as achievement awards, cash substitutes (such as gift certificates or discount coupons), nominal gifts or food, and public perks (such as parking spots) have diminished in importance for most of today’s employees. These all ranked at the bottom of employee preferences in research I’ve conducted across industries. As one participant commented in the focus group mentioned above: “Employees no longer hang up their certificates.”
How do you recognize employees?
Employees’ faith in institutions has drastically declined; they view themselves as working more for other people than for organizations. It’s those people they work for–and with–that can most make recognition meaningful and special. In a recent study I conducted, 78 percent of employees indicated that it was “very” or “extremely” important to them to be recognized by their managers when they do good work, and 73 percent said they expected that recognition to occur either “immediately” or “soon thereafter.”
So what is most important when it comes to how employees prefer to be recognized today? Ironically, it’s the simple forms of sincere thanks that still mean the most. In fact, of the top 10 recognition factors that employees indicated were important when they did good work, four were types of praise–personal, written, electronic and public–each typically generated by those individuals they hold in high esteem at work, given in a timely, sincere and specific manner.
Other top-ranked motivators were support and involvement, that is, providing the information that employees need to do their jobs, involving employees in decisions (especially those that affect them), asking employees for their opinions and ideas, and supporting them when they make a mistake. Autonomy and authority, such as allowing them to decide how best to do their work, allowing them to pursue ideas they might have for improving things, and giving them a choice of work assignments, also ranked high for employees. So did flexible working hours, learning and development opportunities, and the availability and time of their manager.
What do these factors have in common? They are all intangible, interpersonal and highly situational. Granting the above items in response to good work when it occurs is the most desired form of recognition cited by today’s employees. These actions say, “I’m here as a person, not just a manager, when you need me the most.” One employee recently told me that she was having a tough time with some personal issues, and during a meeting her manager said: “Mary, I want you to go home, take care of what you have to there, and come back when you’re ready.” She took a few days off and came back to work ready to dig in. “That happened over seven years ago,” she told me, “but I think about it and the courtesy and consideration that manager extended to me almost every single day.”
The shift to informality
Caroline Strumbly at Progressive Insurance illustrates the shift she’s seen in her organization: “My group within our company is starting to lean toward less formality around recognition. Recognition is being pushed into the managers’ hands (along with the budget). Managers will be responsible for coming up with individual programs to recognize their team members, moving away from structured recognition to more personalized forms of recognition.”
This shift toward less formal recognition makes sense because that is what employees today say they most value. More personal, “here and now,” sincere thanks and forms of recognition are preferred over more formal programs, which are less frequent and less personalized, and often have lost relevance, meaning and excitement in most organizations today.
A balanced approach
You don’t have to do informal recognition to the exclusion of formal recognition. My recommendation is that you ask employees (via a survey, assessment, focus groups or all of the above) what they value from a list that includes current programs and practices and potential new items, activities and practices. See how they respond. Then, once you have a motivation baseline of your employees’ preferences, systematically move away from those things that your employees no longer seem to value and toward those things they seem more excited about.
This allows you to discontinue programs and practices that are not valued with a minimum perceived “take away” loss, because you’re acting on their feedback (which itself will be motivational to most employees) and adding things that they have indicated they value more highly. This process will also validate those things that are currently working and provide an energy surge to your overall recognition efforts, making them more fresh, fun and dynamic.
Joint effort
There’s no substitute for the personal touch, and for real-life communication with your employees about what they value, need and want in order to be more effective contributors to you and the organization. Effective managers today know this and realize that it’s what you do with your employees more than what you do to them that counts.
You’ll get the best from your employees and keep them the longest when you show them that you personally care. And the best way to do that is through your daily efforts in recognizing and thanking employees when they do good work, not through any number of formal recognition programs.
Dear Workforce Should Employees Be Involved in Politics?
Objective
Many state laws prohibit or limit contributions by companies to political parties or candidates. Federal law prohibits contributions to candidates for federal office. With certain limitations, companies may contribute to national political parties.
-
Make it clear, when expressing individual political views, that they are individual personal views and not those of the company.
-
Get approval from the appropriate department head when making contributions to political candidates in the name of the company.
-
Get approval to perform political activities on company time or to use company resources. (Resources include but are not limited to: photocopy machines, computers, and phones.)
-
Notify the appropriate person/department when making plans to campaign for, or serve in, a public office.
-
Avoid conflicts of interest when serving in public office by excusing oneself from any political matters involving the company.
|
|
|
Red Sox Management Secrets
Boston Red Sox general manager Theo Epstein, 30 years old, was just honored as the Executive of the Year for Major League Baseball. Epstein was named GM at 28, the youngest in baseball history, and has been instrumental in making Boston competitive with the New York Yankees. Epstein’s success is due partly to his scientific approach to talent, according to Lifestyles magazine. First, he uses statistical analysis to determine a player’s potential. Next, he analyzes the ballplayer’s personality. “Many talented players can undo everything with their behavior,” he says. “I believe a team’s chemistry can’t be overrated.” He also uses recently retired players to help evaluate talent, since they have such a keen eye for what goes on between the base paths.
Eyestrain’s Bottom-Line Cost
Uncorrected “computer vision” can have a significant impact on a company’s productivity, according to a study conducted by the University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Optometry and published in the January issue of the American Optometric Association’s journal. A miscorrection of as little as .5 diopter–two “clicks” in a patient’s eye exam–can affect productivity by approximately 9 percent. The employer of an individual with a salary of $60,000 a year would experience a drop in productivity of $5,400.
Dear Workforce Should Employees Receive Higher Incentives Than Supervisors
|
|
|
Newspapers Are Down, Not Out
“It is undeniable that Monster, HotJobs and other recruitment verticals have gained a strong foothold in the recruitment war,” reports Borrell Associates. However, the company says, “this war is far from over.” The company suggests that newspapers make their site designs simpler and more friendly to employers. Borrell estimates that newspaper-owned online recruitment sites will generate $354 million in 2003.
Indian Wages Up
“Compensation is on the rise for Indian IT employees,” according to Information Week. This could mean American companies will send more offshore jobs to other countries, such as China. Also: On last Sunday night’s 60 Minutes, Morley Safer said that “India is Nirvana” to many American employers. Indian employees were shown in classrooms learning to understand American expressions such as “you’re yanking my chain.”
The Relationship Between Training and Organizational Performance
The chart below shows a positive correlation between training expenditures both revenues and profitability. In other words, the more a company spent on workplace learning in 2002, the greater its sales and profits.
Interestingly, the data does not show a direct, positive correlation between training dollars spent and human resources metrics such as retention and employee satisfaction. In other words, according to this survey, more dollars spent on employee training didn’t necessarily mean a happier workforce.
|
Expenditure per Employee |
Expenditure as % of Payroll |
|||||
|
Self-Rating of Performance Compared to 2001 |
Better | Same | Worse | Better | Same | Worse |
| Ability to Retain Employees | $571 | $253 | $702 | 1.97 | 0.45 | 1.47 |
| Employee Satisfaction | $603 | $419 | $640 | 1.40 | 0.71 | 1.77 |
| Quality of Products/Services | $497 | $419 | $541 | 1.14 | 0.71 | 1.80 |
| Customer Satisfaction | $307 | $419 | $468 | 0.75 | 0.71 | 3.18 |
| Sales/Revenues | $1,109 | $705 | $563 | 4.66 | 1.54 | 2.50 |
| Overall Profitability | $987 | $685 | $524 | 3.70 | 1.42 | 1.71 |
|
Self-Rating of Performance Compared to Other Organizations |
Better | Same | Worse | Better | Same | Worse |
| Ability to Retain Employees | $743 | $329 | $996 | 2.58 | 1.55 | 2.72 |
| Employee Satisfaction | $736 | $419 | $634 | 2.43 | 0.71 | 1.51 |
| Quality of Products/Services | $749 | $329 | $703 | 2.89 | 1.55 | 2.46 |
| Customer Satisfaction | $665 | $329 | $648 | 2.42 | 1.55 | 3.10 |
| Sales/Revenues | $842 | $709 | $619 | 2.33 | 1.74 | 1.68 |
| Overall Profitability | $815 | $654 | $477 | 2.46 | 1.51 | 1.35 |
The information is fromASTD’s 2003 State of the Industry Report.
