Category: Workplace Culture

Posted on

Top Effects & Causes of Poor Communication

poor communication

Summary

  • Employees across various industries report poor communication as one of the leading challenges they face during the workday. 

  • Poor communication has a negative impact on both employee productivity and mental health.

  • A mix of face-to-face meetings, training, and using communication software helps mitigate the effects of poor communication.

The workplace is increasingly connected, with 24/7 email, instant messaging and phone calls pulling employees into work matters both during and after business hours. But that doesn’t necessarily mean employees are better connected to each other. Often, all that information can become white noise.

The study “Communication Barriers in the Modern Workplace,” conducted by the Economist Intelligence Unit and sponsored by Lucidchart, has taken stock of communication in the workplace today, and the results suggest leaders have some work to do.

Also read: How to use technology in your internal communications strategy

The State of (Mis)Communication

EIU’s study of 403 executives, managers and staff at U.S. companies found that, across the board, employees believe miscommunication is contributing to their stress, failure to complete projects and loss of sales. “This is not just an unpleasantry. This is really affecting the performance of the company,” said Nathan Rawlins, chief marketing officer at Lucid Software, makers of Lucidchart.

Rawlins emphasized, “Employers just don’t even understand that this is a challenge. We talk about things like diversity and as part of that conversation don’t talk about the fact there are diverse ways of communicating.”

Miscommunication takes on many forms. According to the study, different communication styles, unclear responsibilities and time pressures are the three most frequently cited causes of poor communication. Focusing on communication styles, employees’ struggles to connect often result in unclear expectations that are amplified under pressure.

Employees believe miscommunication is contributing to their stress, failure to complete projects and loss of sales.

The data show that miscommunication is more severe across generational divides. “Nearly a third of millennials and Gen Xers said that they have used instant messaging every day in the past year to communicate with colleagues or clients,” Rawlins said. Only 12 percent of baby boomers reported a similar trend. This leaves part of the workforce with one less way to connect with one another, reducing the likelihood of effective message delivery.

Hierarchy impacts communication as well. Leaders have a hard time making direct contact with their frontline employees, for example. Those serving as bridges between higher-ups and nonsupervisory employees, the middle managers, tend to face the most communication trouble, having to navigate different goals and desires from above and below. “They tend to get caught in the middle of conflicting communication preferences,” Rawlins said.

Loss of morale, stress and frustration abound when employees can’t connect. That’s a burden employees may carry home with them, affecting their home life and future work performance.

The report found that in addition to its effect on productivity, miscommunication also has a heavy emotional impact on employees. Loss of morale, stress and frustration abound when employees can’t connect. That’s a burden employees may carry home with them, affecting their home life and future work performance.

Employees reported that too many unproductive meetings, tight deadlines and waiting for others to pass along information in order to continue working were the top three most stressful situations.

Also read: When Your Workday Is Interrupted, and Interrupted Again and Again

“These inconsistencies in the pattern of how managers who lead are communicating is leading to challenges,” said Philipp Schramm, chief financial officer and vice president of human resources and communications at Webasto Roof Systems Americas. “People are worried, rumors start and that’s a major problem.”

Technological Impact

Surprisingly, the study found a discrepancy between the tools employees know are effective and the ones they continue to use. For example, only 22 percent of employees reported they have meetings every day despite their reported effectiveness. Also, 60 percent of employees said they use email every day, but only 40 percent said it’s very effective at sharing information.

Many reported that technology is actually hurting communication as it has drastically cut down on direct communication, allowing employees to default to tools like email rather than phone calls and meetings. As a result, employees no longer have access to nonverbal cues like tone of voice, gestures and visuals to help them understand messages.

Sixty-five percent of employees reported that face-to-face meetings were very effective for sharing information, making them the most effective method the study examined. That number didn’t change across generations. That means employees may feel they’re missing out on important information, even if fewer meetings and phone calls reduce wasted time and interruptions to their workflow.

However, tools utilizing technology like video conferencing, slide presentations and even conference calls can reestablish some of the elements of visual and face-to-face communication that employees are looking for. For international businesses, digital conferencing has already become an essential element of the workday, and it may become increasingly important to connect with remote workers.

“These are all forms of communication,” Schramm said. “To say that one form of communication is best I think would be the wrong approach to it. It depends on the situation.”

To say that one form of communication is best I think would be the wrong approach to it. It depends on the situation.”

— Philipp Schramm, chief financial officer and vice president of human resources and communications at Webasto Roof Systems Americas

How Can Training Help?

While it may not be possible to completely change one’s communication style, the No. 1 cause of miscommunication found by the EIU, it is possible to become more aware of others’ communication styles through training. However, employees may be missing out on the right kind of training.

Schramm stated that some organizations don’t see communication as a topic where training is essential. “They say, ‘Why do you spend time on communication? We all learn how to communicate. We all learn how to speak.’ ” He emphasized that existing communication training programs tend to focus more on presentation than on communication. This makes them ineffective.

“In the end, it’s not about presenting yourself in an organization; it’s about how we interact with each other,” Schramm said.

One study found that even short communication training sessions for doctors improved patient satisfaction, as well as reduced burnout for participants. Communication training helped doctors better connect to those they serve, and the same can apply to other organizations.

Sixty-two percent of respondents to the EIU study said they believed firmwide training to improve communication would have a significant impact. Additionally, 57 percent of responders reported they enjoyed working with people who have different communication styles. They just need the training to understand how to better communicate among them.

“I think that’s absolutely critical, that we help people understand that not everyone communicates the same way they do,” Rawlins said.

Communication training is more than just increasing written communication skills. It should include training on verbal communication and basic training on the use of new communication tools. As the generational divide between millennials and boomers emphasizes, for example, training on the uses of instant messaging could expand use of the technology and increase efficacy.

More important, communication training should include opportunities to practice in realistic situations. “We think that this is a great opportunity for workshops and practice sessions where people can try different ways of communicating than they’re probably most familiar with,” Rawlins said.

Schramm echoed this point. “Put more emphasis actually on the doing. Don’t put too much emphasis on learning the theory behind,” he said.

Schramm’s team at Webasto has already overhauled the company’s communication training program with great success. “With putting a lot of effort on fairness and proper communication within the organization we have improved in just 15 months from the worst company McKinsey has seen to the second-best category,” Schramm said. And that overhaul has had an impact on the personal lives of employees who reported they are communicating better outside the office, as well.

What’s Next?

Overcoming communication problems needs to be a team effort. Schramm stated that it is the job of leaders to guide teams toward the right tools. “I think that’s the kind of understanding a leader has to get: what tool, what way of communication to use for what situation without losing your authenticity,” he said.

With the help of training, perhaps all employees can gain that level of understanding. Rawlins said, “One of the key skills is recognition of the type of communication patterns that are most common with the people you are working with.” Across the board, individuals should strive to better understand the communication methods that work best for their teams. Learning leaders can facilitate this process by ensuring all team members have the vocabulary to do so.

The workplace is only going to continue to change. That means additional stress on employees and a greater variety of tools available to employers. But by improving how they communicate now, teams at all levels can be ready to navigate what’s to come.

“As we understand this data, as we take a step back and think about communication, we can actually affect the bottom line,” Rawlins said. “We can help people be more effective, help them to be less stressed at work, focus on the things that matter most and ultimately improve the way that the business operates.”

This story originally appeared in Workforce’s sister publication, Chief Learning Officer.

Posted on

How to Fire an Employee

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

The Wall Street Journal recently asked this simple question:

What’s the Best Way to Fire Someone?

I have some thoughts.

    1. Before you pull the trigger, ask yourself, “Is this employee going to perceive that the decision was fair.” Did the employee have notice of the issues that caused the termination? Had the employee recently complained or otherwise engaged in protected activity? To look at this issue another way, mock-jury your decision. If the employee lawyers up and sues, will a jury think your decision was fair? If jurors feel that the plaintiff was treated the same way the jurors would want to be treated, the jury will be much more likely to find in the employer’s favor.
    2. Do not mistreat the employee at the time of termination. Terminated employees deserve a face-to-face discussion. At all costs, avoid firing by a letter, phone call (or, worse, voice mail), email, text message, Facebook post, Tweet, or any other not-in-person communication. Do not “perp walk” a fired employee. Some employees deserve to be shown the door swiftly and coarsely. They stole, they harassed someone, or they assaulted someone. For most terminations—the “you’re not a good-fit,” the “it just isn’t working out,” the “we’re going in a different direction”—you want to do what you can to avoid litigation, or the employee trashing you on Glassdoor and other review sites. And not perp walking the fired employee is a great first step.
    3. Offer the employee some explanation for your decision, but understand that if sued, you better be able to back that decision up, else a judge or jury might find your decision to be pretext for an unlawful reason. Offering no reason leaves an employee to scratch their head, which takes us right back to point 1 above—”If they don’t have a reason (or won’t tell me the reason, is this decisions fair?” Offering too detailed of a reason could lead to issues of proof in litigation down the road, and could open turn your conversation into a debate (which is the last thing you want). Instead, look for the Goldilocks reason—the “just right” amount of an explanation so that the employee understands the rationale. If you’ve previously communicated to an employee documented performance issues, there is no point in rehashing them at termination. It accomplishes nothing and can be perceived as cruel. Instead, simply remind the employee that you’ve previously discussed the issues, which have not improved. Further, the more detail you provide, the more penned in you will be in later litigation. Your goal is to be honest with the employee, yet, in the event of litigation, provide your counsel with the most flexibility to support the termination.
    4. In all but the most egregious of terminations, offer a soft landing through a severance package … but only in exchange for a release of claims by the employee. Some employees deserve nothing (theft, harassment, etc.). But, most should walk out the door with something. While you are not under any legal obligation to provide severance to any employee (unless you have a plan or policy that says otherwise), there is a lot of value in getting their signature on an agreement in which they promise not to sue you. It’s closure, for both you and the employee, and helps create that little bit of good will at the end of the relationship.

The bottom line? Firing an employee the wrong way — a termination text message, a perp walk, and zero dignity — leads to bad feelings, which leads to expensive and time-consuming lawsuits.

Also read: HR Leaders Reevaluate Termination Policies in Wake of Workplace Shooting

Never forget that losing a job is one of the worst things that can happen to someone. A little compassion goes a long way. 

Also read: How-to HR: Offboarding Employees — Terminations

What are your top tips for the “best” way to fire an employee? Leave your thoughts in the comments below, @ me on twitter with the hashtag #terminationtips, or on LinkedIn by posting a comment in this thread.

Posted on

Workforce Editorial Team Nabs Gold at ASBPE Awards

Human Capital Media editorial staffers brought home top honors in video, print design and online writing at the regional American Society of Business Publishers and Editors Awards banquet last night in Chicago.

Video Editor Andrew Lewis won Gold in the News Video category for the Workforce video, “Voting on the Clock Works as an Engagement Tool,” and the Silver award in the Tutorial Video category for the Workforce video, “How-to HR: Onboarding New Hires.” 

Art Director Theresa Stoodley captured Gold in the Print Design/Opening Page/Spread-Illustration for the Workforce feature, “All Eyes on You.” 

And former Chief Learning Officer Associate Editor Ave Rio took Gold in the Online/Web How-to Article category for the CLO story, “How to Prepare for Active Shooters in the Workplace.”

Lewis and Stoodley also are nominated for ASBPE national honors, which will be handed out in May in Pensacola, Florida. 

Posted on

Q&A With John Bunch: Holacracy Helps Zappos Swing From Job Ladder to Job Jungle Gym

John Bunch, Zappos
John Bunch, Zappos

John Bunch began his career with online retailer Zappos in 2009 as a software developer. Since then, he has become the lead organizational designer and technical adviser to Zappos CEO Tony Hsieh. Bunch was the key leader in the company’s shift from a traditional business hierarchy to a self-organizational structure called holacracy. Workforce Editorial Associate Bethany Tomasian spoke with Bunch about Zappos’ journey away from the more traditional business structure and how holacracy has changed the workplace environment.

Workforce: In your own words, can you describe the concept of holacracy?

John Bunch: There are several different elements that holacracy brings to an organization. Traditional organizations’ hierarchy are positions from entry level to CEO and an employee resides in one place along that ladder. One of the ways that holacracy is different is that it’s a hierarchy of work, not people. That means that within holacracy there are different circles of work and an employee can reside in different circles. A circle is just another name for a team, and an employee holds a certain role in that circle. A single employee could hold different roles throughout several circles in the organization. In that sense, holacracy breaks down the one-person, one-team ideology.

Along with that element, there is distributed authority. In a traditional hierarchy you get the authority from a person higher than you in the organization, your boss. In holacracy there is a governance process which determines what roles have the authority to take which actions. The goal should be to unleash people’s creative power, let them be autonomous and only implement restrictions when there is a good reason. There are processes for distributing authority and for limiting that authority within a circle or throughout the company.

In holacracy there is also the concept of evolution. Within holacracy, you are constantly evaluating if those roles and circles in the company need to change. Anybody in the organization can propose a change to what work is being done. I think in traditional organizations, restructuring work is a big deal that could take months to unpack and it might happen infrequently. In holacracy those restructures of work can happen on a weekly basis.

Workforce: What have been the greatest challenges to overcome in a self-managing workplace that is very adaptive?

Bunch: In self-managing workplaces there is more autonomy and there also tends to be more opportunity. One of the things that we talk about is how traditional workplaces run on a job ladder where your progression at a company eventually leads you to your boss’ position. In our workplace, there are so many roles throughout the organization, and if an employee is interested they can pitch themselves for any role. Our mental model is that we are moving away from the job ladder and to the job jungle gym.

However, with more autonomy, opportunity and self-lead progression comes its challenges. Some people thrive in the holacratic environment while other people need more defined direction in terms of their day-to-day work and overall career. It can be a challenge for those people to learn and grow in the new environment. We’ve done things to help those people adapt such as offering a mentorship through the process of professional development and life-training.

Workforce: What have been the greatest successes since introducing holacracy?

Bunch: The biggest successes are the ideas that get off the ground that probably wouldn’t have happened if not for holacracy. In this new environment, your job doesn’t have to be contained to a specific team as you can move across these different circles which enables people to offer ideas that can benefit the whole company. Whereas at a traditional company, your job might be in finance and finance is all you do.

One example of this was when we launched our initiative Zappos Adaptive. This initiative focused on customers that might have adaptive or special needs in terms of their clothes and shoes. Zappos Adaptive was done through employees whose traditional job did not include this focus. These employees had a passion and a vision for helping people in that community.

Workforce: What lessons have you learned along the way with perfecting this method of organization?

Bunch: Whenever you have a change within your organization, you have to be patient with every team and individual’s journey through that change. Especially with a change as fundamental as holacracy. It could take months or even years to become efficient. Zappos, as an organization, had to be very patient in order to make this change. That is a person-to-person connection and we had to monitor where each employee was during their journey. We preach to not only be patient with yourself but also with others. That went a long way.

We also had to be open to trying new things with no guarantee that they would work. If those didn’t work, then we would have to learn and adapt. A good example of that process was when we were transitioning to holacracy. We were thinking about resource allocation and how that would work in the new environment. We realized that this was causing some big challenges in our business metrics. Our fundamental customer service metrics were being degraded based upon the way that we were operating at the time. That was a big deal to us because it went against out ideology, which is, “To live and deliver WOW.”

We tried something as an organization that ultimately wasn’t working and so we had to shift, learn and adapt. We created systems that righted the shift in our resource allocation and our metrics normalized, perhaps better than they were before. You have to be willing to learn from those mistakes and adapt.

Workforce: How has the self-management of holacracy impacted employee work-ethic and sense of personal value in the company?

Bunch: I think that the ability for different people to get involved with ideas across the company has allowed more self-direction. People can be passion-forward and get involved in things that they are passionate about. That can really help employees see the personal value that they create. This isn’t a part of holacracy specifically, but some of the other systems that are scaffolded on top of holacracy speak to this.

For example, we are working on internal market-based dynamics, which essentially means that each circle in the organization would be run like a micro-business. In this system, each micro-enterprise would be funded by the customers. These can be internal customers or external customers. Instead of a top-down funding model, we are shifting our funding as being derived from the customer of whatever work you do. In a traditional company, employees might not see the value that they are creating. This change is relevant to the employee’s personal value because employees won’t think of themselves as a cost to an organization. By creating these internal customers through these micro-business interactions, employees can really see the value that they add to the company.

Workforce: How can innovation in leadership and organization such as holacracy shape the future of how companies operate?

Bunch: As we grew at Zappos, there was this sense we got from our leaders that the things which worked very quickly as a startup were not happening as fast anymore. If you’ve ever been frustrated by how long it takes you to get something done then you might resonate with this. As we started examining that challenge, we were really inspired by this research that had been done about cities. The research found that every time a city doubled in size, productivity per resident grew by 15 percent. As cities grow, they become more productive on a per-resident basic. However, the exact opposite happens when organizations grow larger. As the size of an organization doubles, productivity per employee goes down. I think we sense this as employees at large organizations when we become frustrated by how long things can take.

What if we could structure our companies in ways that cities are structured? Could we see the same exponential relationship between growth and productivity? That is the vision of where we want to go at Zappos. We want to show that with holacracy we can make more productive and happier employees.

Workforce: What advice would you offer other companies and even startups that are thinking about evolving the workplace hierarchy dynamic?

Bunch: It is easier to start when you are small. At Zappos, we started on this journey when had around 1,500 employees. Some of the challenges that we went through were due to our size. Those were challenges that we might not have had if we started these changes when we were a five-person company. If we started when we were small, some of these changes would have grown in scale with the organization.

I would also tell companies to think small. Think about small ways that you can make your workplace more dynamic and give those a try. If you see positive change, then keep going.

It is easy to go with the status quo and the traditional methods of organization. However, there is a growing amount of evidence of the fundamental flaws with that line of thinking. If you want to have an organization that is inspiring and resilient then it is important to think about these changes.

Posted on

Rage Rooms Offer a Chance to Vent … and Smash Stuff

rage rooms for employees

The woman from an IT firm frustrated by challenges in both life and work glided through the warehouse swinging a baseball bat, a golf club and alternately a sledgehammer attempting to destroy office equipment and glass bottles sitting on a table.

In most any other scenario, an HR professional may have called security or referred Jane Gardner to counseling.

Instead, an HR practitioner applauded the effort. Kathy Barrios, a human resources business partner for Polyconcept North America, and Massiel Reyes, a recruiter with staffing firm Westaff, offered Gardner water and a smile after she was done “raging.”

Barrios and Reyes own Smash the Rage, a 1,500-square-foot facility in a Miami area industrial complex. It’s one of the nation’s newest so-called “rage rooms” in which patrons are encouraged to funnel their anger through what they believe is a more appropriate and enjoyable outlet.

Workplace frustrations account for the reason most patrons visit the facility. Some are repeat customers; others are referrals.

“A lot of retail employees come in and complain about their customers. People are frustrated with their workloads; their bosses and their colleagues are a major issue,” said Barrios.

Other Smash the Rage events center a theme on parenting stress, divorce parties and holiday blues. People also celebrate victories like conquering cancer.

“Kathy came into my office upset one day and wanted to smash things,” said Reyes of Smash the Rage’s genesis. “Of course, when people talk like that, you give them a pat on the back and say, ‘You know what, champ? It’s OK. There will be better days.’ ”

Barrios instead researched rage rooms and suggested to Reyes they open one. They still maintain their day jobs and manage the rage room at nights and on weekends.

The woman letting out her frustrations works as an accountant at an IT company and discovered that in order to advance she needed to become a licensed CPA. She found studying for and taking the CPA exam intensive and difficult.

Exasperated, she took out her annoyances during a Smash the Rage visit.

“Each time, it’s like a workout,” she said. “It gives you an exhilarating feeling.”

On the low end, patrons pay $30 to bring in their own box of items to smash during a 15-minute session. An “office smash” costs $100 for one person for 25 minutes. Additional people pay $30.

Patrons must sign a waiver and wear closed-toe shoes. Protective gear includes a safety suit, a helmet with a face shield, goggles for extra precaution and gloves with phone-friendly fingertips for those wanting to photograph their sessions.

Patrons use a number of weapons for raging, including bats, sledgehammers, golf clubs, legs of tables, wrenches, metal poles and shovels.

Barrios and Reyes source most of the materials for destruction through conducting free bulk pick-ups from people seeking to get rid of items. After the rage session, the broken items, including glass, metal and aluminum, are sorted for recycling or disposal.

The Smash the Rage website makes it clear the facility is for entertainment and not therapy.

Even so, “we try to make it a therapeutic experience in the way we welcome them,” said Reyes of patrons. “We tell them they’re in a safe space to let it out and let it go. They’re doing something unconventional they’re not raised to do.”

Reyes and Barrios are aware that some psychologists believe rage rooms are not a healthy way to manage anger, instead believing they encourage and promote it.

“We are in a world where sometimes the physical outlet — what we call raging — is sometimes more cathartic in dealing with a high level of emotions than sitting in a small space in the quiet with your eyes closed trying to take a deep breath,” Reyes said.

Also read: Senior Living Facility Employees Benefit from Art Therapy

Customers who arrive with pent-up anger leave the facility “sweaty, red and relaxed,” Reyes said.

“We give them a cold bottle of water, a pat on the back and say, ‘All right, have a good day and take a deep breath for tomorrow,’ ” she added.

As an HR professional, Barrios said she believes rage rooms could be a useful employee benefit.

“We’ve had customers whose companies just had major layoffs and they were affected and frustrated by the system,” she said. “They go through many emotions and come here and tell me they felt completely different afterward.”

Raging crosses a line people normally are afraid to cross, Reyes said. “We definitely don’t want to promote violence. We tell them we want them to let it out here so they don’t carry it out with them.”

Posted on

Q&A With Gary Pisano: How Managerial Leadership Drives Innovation

Author Gary Pisano
Author Gary Pisano

Over his three-decade career, Gary Pisano has been a researcher and consultant to many of the world’s largest corporations in various industries from aerospace to nutrition. He is a Harry E. Figgie professor of business administration at Harvard Business School where he has been a member of the faculty since 1988. Pisano’s extensive experience has made him one of the leading experts in management, innovation and competitive strategy. In his new book, “Creative Construction: The DNA of Sustained Innovation,” Pisano examines how businesses of all sizes, not just plucky startups, can become transformative innovators. Workforce Editorial Associate Bethany Tomasian recently caught up with Pisano.

Workforce: When did you recognize the need for leadership-oriented innovation strategies?

Gary P. Pisano: I think it goes back very early in my career working with companies, consulting for them and case writing. I saw that without the right leadership to shape the innovation process, getting the strategy and building the right culture just doesn’t happen. I kept coming across situations with some organizations where you wouldn’t see progress over time. There was no one really taking the ball and running with it to provide that energy. Where there was lack of leadership, I would see there was a lack of progress.

Then there were companies where I would see a leader take ownership and you’d see results. So that crystalized for me that leadership plays a central role in driving innovation. I set out to write the book to give leaders a guide in how to do it.

Workforce: What is the relationship between necessity and competition as driving forces for innovation?

Pisano: I think competition is critical for driving innovation. It provides the motive. I don’t think we see a lot of innovation in sectors of the economy where there is little competition because of there is a lack of incentive. If you look at any of these companies such as Amazon, Apple and Google, there’s a lot of competition going on there between these very techy companies. They’re always changing and they can’t sit still. Competition plays an incredibly important role in spawning innovation and spawning a lot of a good economic outcomes. I’m speaking here as someone trained in economics, so I tend to feel in favor of competition to drive good outcomes in general. Competition does a lot more than innovation, too. It drives better prices and efficiency.

I think competition is one of the reasons companies get interested in innovating, particularly companies whose competitive space has suddenly gotten more intense. They might have had a period where they could get away with not being very innovative and then their space starts to change. That’s when they say, “OK, we need to reenergize this innovation muscle again.”

I’ve worked at a number of those companies where it has been some 20 to 30 years since they’ve been innovative and they got away with it because their markets were only moderately competitive. When the competition kicked up and prices began to erode, they saw they couldn’t generate the margins they needed to sustain themselves without innovation.

Workforce: In an era of nearly exponential technological growth, what defines innovation?

Pisano: We do think about innovation too much as being about the technology change but it’s not always technology. There is a lot of business model change that has very little to do with technology. Technology is not the magic; the magic is their business model.

Think about discount airline carriers, somebody like Ryanair and easyJet in Europe. They all use the same planes and airports as everyone else and they have to follow the same regulations as everyone else. Yet, the story there isn’t about technology; it’s about creating a completely new business model. I think we see a lot of that. There is a lot of business model innovation that doesn’t necessarily have to do with high technology.

Workforce: How can companies stay focused on small-scale innovation rather than becoming distracted by whiz-bang innovative strategies?

Pisano: I think it’s very easy to get inebriated by technology today. To some, it’s all about the technology and pushing the technological frontier. I think you have to go back to letting value become your compass and go back to what your competitive position is. This can help you figure out what you need and what is going to drive innovation. Sometimes that is going to be functionality that is created by technology but sometimes it could be a different kind of service offering, or business model.

Take men’s shaving products. Making a razor blade sharper using ever more sophisticated technology is probably not the value driver, but convenience is something different. Think about companies like Dollar Shave Club and Harry’s, which have online models that provide convenient access to the product. This goes back to the source of value and what customers would be willing to pay for. That’s the acid test of value.

Workforce: Are there examples of established companies that are leading in innovative strategies?

Pisano: I think there are many of them across all sectors of the economy in different ways. Innovation is in almost every sector. You see it in apparel with people buying clothing online. The whole retail sector is being turned on its head, so we see a lot of innovation there as well. If you are going to survive you need to innovate.

There is a lot interesting stuff in the auto industry today. People talk about the auto companies as being dinosaurs, but they are doing a lot of innovation on the technological side. They are doing a lot of advancement around alternative fuel and most of them have some major programs there. They are also experimenting with new business models such as ride sharing. Sometimes it’s the companies that we don’t think of as innovative. When people think of innovative auto companies everyone thinks of Tesla. There are some major auto companies that we haven’t normally thought of as these bastions of innovation that are doing fascinating things.

There are also profound changes going on technologically in the drug industry. These aren’t business model innovations per se, although many pharmaceutical companies are experimenting with new business models. There are scientific changes happening that these companies are actively involved with and investing in. It’s not just startups that are innovating, there are large, established companies.

Every company, I don’t care who you are, there is an opportunity to be an innovator. Some might say, “Innovation doesn’t apply to us. We can do what we have been doing, just do it a little better.” I don’t think that there are many sectors of the economy where that is true anymore. Particularly in the U.S. economy, where we are facing global competition. That’s going to be hard to compete on.

Workforce: As climate change remains an ever-encroaching threat to the environment, how can more companies gear strategies toward greener innovations?

Pisano: I think companies are looking very carefully at their incentives to do it. This is where government policy matters because policies often create the incentive for companies to innovate. Tax policies and other regulations can tilt the field, so you will see that kind of innovation. A lot of companies are waiting and watching. Auto companies certainly see themselves on the forefront of green innovation as they invest heavily in alternative fuel sources. I think that there are a lot of things that every company can do in terms of climate concern.

Think about plastic. Plastic is atrocious for the environment and it’s all over the place. Just thinking about changing materials doesn’t require massive innovation. You can see how much waste there is every day, especially in packaging. A lot of the stuff you buy online that is shipped to your house is loaded with plastic and Styrofoam. None of us want our stuff to be broken but there is an awful amount of waste just in packaging. We don’t think of packaging as this big innovation opportunity but figuring out ways to cushion items without using so much plastic would be amazing.

I think regardless of what business you’re in, you could be thinking about fitting green innovation into your business model. This can be done by just improving efficiency. Even incremental improvements in process efficiency, where you use less energy, can accumulate quite a big effect.

Again, we can see this in the auto industry where cars have become more efficient. We now have smaller cars with much cleaner and more powerful engines. That innovation was largely driven by change in fuel and clean air standards. This is an example of how government policy matters when it comes to driving the incentive for companies to pursue climate-conscious innovation.

There are tons of opportunities for innovation that help the climate. I do think companies need polices that provide those incentives. I would tell companies to have a clear strategy of how you are adding climate change as a priority into your innovation portfolio. Ask yourself how this is going to create value and think about your broader competitive advantage.

Workforce: Any final takeaways for companies that are thinking about approaching innovation?

Pisano: Take your time. There is no magic bullet for these kinds of strategies. I wish I could offer you three easy steps but if innovation were easy then it wouldn’t be a source of competitive advantage. If it were easy, then it wouldn’t be valuable.

It is hard to build an organization that is capable of innovating and doing it over and over again. If you can do that, then your organization has a fantastic competitive advantage.

Posted on

Focus on Employee Work Passion, Not Employee Engagement

employee work passion

Every day the spirits of millions of people die at the front door of their workplace.employee work passion

There is an epidemic of workers who are uninterested and disengaged from the work they do, and the cost to the U.S. economy has been pegged at more than $300 billion annually. According to a recent survey from Deloitte, only 20 percent of people say they are truly passionate about their work. Gallup surveys show that nearly 70 percent of the workforce is not engaged, with an estimated 23 million “actively disengaged.” These employees have quit and stayed — they show up for work but do the bare minimum to get by, don’t put in any extra effort to care for customers and are a drain on organizational resources and productivity.

On the trust front, the findings are just as stark. Studies show that 50 percent of employees who distrust their senior leaders are considering leaving the organization, with 62 percent reporting that low trust causes unreasonable levels of stress. According to workplace consultancy Tolero Solutions, 45 percent of employees say lack of trust in leadership is the biggest issue impacting work performance.

Building and sustaining high levels of engagement is a critical competency for today’s leaders. In our technology-fueled, digitally connected world where new products, competitors and business models seem to emerge overnight, one of the few competitive advantages an organization possesses is its people. The level of skill, talent, creativity, innovation and passion in the workforce of an organization can mean the difference between mediocre and exceptional results.

Focusing solely on engagement is not enough to get us there. We must shift the focus from engagement to the creation of a high-trust culture where employees are passionate about their work.

From Employee Engagement to Employee Work Passion

Employee engagement is a broad and complex problem that organizations spend $720 million a year trying to solve, according to a Bersin & Associates report. Yet when it comes to engagement there isn’t even a commonly accepted definition of the term. Descriptions vary widely, with elements that include commitment, goal alignment, enjoyment and performance, to name a few.

We make a few critical distinctions between the concepts of engagement and employee work passion.

First, employee work passion is supported by a theory and model that explain how work passion is formed. We believe employee work passion is better understood by considering the influence of research on social cognition, appraisal theory, job commitment and organizational commitment. Therefore, it is a different and more expansive concept than engagement.

Second, the combination of relationship, organizational, and job factors influence an individual’s level of work passion. Whereas engagement is often linked to job satisfaction, employee work passion considers the cognitive and affective appraisals people make when assessing their environment and the meaning they ascribe to their thoughts and feelings.

Employee Work PassionThird, the literature on engagement usually describes three states of engagement: engaged, disengaged, and actively disengaged. This three-part description lacks a positive upper range of active engagement — distinguished by the concept of employee work passion, this passionate commitment comes from repeated involvement in self-defining activities. Employee work passion goes beyond simple engagement in various work activities to the incorporation of self-defining activities that become a central feature in an employee’s identity.

Creating Employee Work Passion

To understand how employee work passion occurs, one must consider the process an individual goes through when deciding to employ a specific behavior. As stated earlier, much of the research on engagement does not take the full scope of this process into account. Through deeper exploration of the literature, we began to incorporate significant ideas found in cognitive psychology.

Employee choices are driven by the understanding of how the experience or event being appraised impacts well-being. Since people are meaning-oriented and meaning-creating, they are constantly reacting (cognitively and affectively) to their environment to form judgments (appraisals) about how their well-being is affected by environmental events.

Cognition and affect go hand in hand, happening almost simultaneously, over and over, as individuals make sense of a situation. The conclusions they reach about what is happening, what it means to them, how it will affect them, how they feel about that, what they intend to do, and — finally — what they actually do, are all filtered through the lens of who they are.

The model suggests that the appraisal process begins with an assessment of the organizational, job and relationship factors. During the appraisal process, an employee makes sense of how they feel about the extent to which the 12 factors are present in the work environment.

There are multiple steps in the appraisal process. First, individuals make cognitive (thinking) and affective (feeling) judgments of their environment: What do I think about what’s happening around me and how does it make me feel.

Next, an employee’s passion moderates, or shapes, those appraisals into intended behaviors. Passion can be categorized in two ways: obsessive and harmonious.

Obsessive passion can be described as activity individuals engage in because they “have to,” “must do,” or “needs to,” often to their own detriment (such as addiction, compulsiveness, etc.).

Harmonious passion are those activities that could be described as “gets to,” “wants to,” or “can’t wait to” perform. Harmonious passion is exhibited when people lose themselves in the flow of an activity. The final step of the appraisal process occurs when individuals form conscious intentions to behave in certain ways, as measured through the five intentions. These intentions ultimately lead to either positive or negative job and organizational behaviors.

Trust’s Role in Employee Work Passion

High levels of trust between leaders and employees foster engagement and vitality in an organization’s culture. The 2017 “Employee Job Satisfaction and Engagement” report from the Society for Human Resource Management showed the top two contributors to employee satisfaction were respectful treatment of all employees at all levels (65 percent) and trust between employees and senior management (61 percent).

Studies have shown that committed and engaged employees who trust their leaders perform 20 percent better and are 87 percent less likely to leave the organization, and that high-trust organizations experience 50 percent less turnover than low-trust organizations. Despite the amount of evidence pointing to the personal and organizational benefits of having a high-trust culture, however, many organizations lack an intentional approach to building trust.

Trust doesn’t come easy and it doesn’t happen by accident. One challenge in building trust is that it is based on perceptions — one person’s idea of what trust looks like in a relationship can be different from another’s. So, it is critically important for leaders and organizations to establish a shared definition for and understanding of trust.Employee Work Passion

A leader’s trustworthiness is composed of four elements that we’ve captured in the ABCD Trust Model. Leaders are trustworthy when they are:

Able: Able leaders have the expertise, training, and qualifications to perform well in their roles. They also have a track record of success as they demonstrate the ability to consistently achieve goals. Able leaders are skilled at facilitating work getting done in the organization. They develop credible project plans, systems and processes that help team members accomplish their goals.

Believable: A believable leader acts with integrity by dealing with people in an honest fashion; e.g., keeping promises, not lying or stretching the truth, not gossiping, etc. Believable leaders have a clear set of values. They communicate these values to their direct reports and use them consistently as a model for their behavior: They walk the talk. Finally, treating people fairly and equitably is a key characteristic of a believable leader. They are attuned to the dynamics of distributive and procedural fairness (see sidebar) and uphold those principles in the workplace.

Connected: Connected leaders show care and concern for people, which builds trust and helps create an engaging work environment. Leaders can create a sense of connection by openly sharing information about themselves, the organization and by trusting employees to use that information responsibly. Taking an interest in people as individuals, not nameless workers, shows that these leaders value and respect their team members. Recognition is a vital component of being a connected leader and praising and rewarding employees’ contributions builds trust and goodwill.

Dependable: Being dependable and maintaining reliability is the fourth element of trustworthiness. One of the quickest ways leaders erode trust is by not following through on commitments. Conversely, leaders who do what they say they are going to do earn a reputation of being consistent and trustworthy. Maintaining reliability requires leaders to be organized so that they can follow through on commitments, be on time for appointments and meetings, and get back to people in a timely fashion. Dependable leaders also hold themselves and others accountable for following through on commitments and taking responsibility for their work.

The trust one places in a leader comes in two forms: cognitive trust and affective trust. In relation to the ABCD Trust Model, cognitive trust is based on the confidence one has that a leader is able and dependable. This is trust from the head, where rational thought and experience rule. Affective trust, or trust from the heart, is formed by emotional closeness, empathy or friendship. It aligns with “Believable” and “Connected” in the ABCD Trust Model. Our research has shown a large degree of correlation between trust (cognitive and affective combined) and all five work intentions.

Next Step for Leaders

When looking to create a culture where trust flourishes and employees are passionately committed to their work, leaders should examine how the ABCDs of trust are modeled in everyday behaviors, and the extent to which the 12 factors of employee work passion are present. Leaders should ask themselves the following questions:

Does our culture allow individuals to find meaning in their work, their roles and our organization’s purpose?

Are policies, procedures, benefits and compensation transparent and equitably applied to all?

Does our organization provide growth opportunities? Do our feedback mechanisms allow individuals to improve?

Do individuals understand what is expected of them and have a reasonable amount of autonomy when engaging in projects and tasks? Does our organization provide opportunities for individuals to collaborate with others?

Are job roles balanced and reasonable, with enough variety to challenge people perform at optimal levels?

Does our organization have an intentional approach to building trust? And do leaders exhibit the ABCDs of trust in their relationships?

While it may seem daunting to address and incorporate the ABCDs of trust and the 12 factors of employee work passion into the workplace, organizations that do so will be rewarded by trustworthy and passionate employees dedicated to creating devoted customers, achieving sustainable growth and increasing profits for the organization.

Posted on

What a Lawful ‘Civility’ Policy looks like under the NLRB’s Boeing Test

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

Consider and compare the following workplace civility policies:

Commitment to My Co-Workers

  • I will accept responsibility for establishing and maintaining healthy interpersonal relationships with you and every member of this team.
  • I will talk to you promptly if I am having a problem with you. The only time I will discuss it with another person is when I need advice or help in deciding how to communicate with you appropriately.
  • I will not complain about another team member and ask you not to as well. If I hear you doing so, I will ask you to talk to that person.
  • I will be committed to finding solutions to problems rather than complaining about them or blaming someone for them, and ask you to do the same.
-vs-
Blogging 
Blogging outside of the hospital must not include … disparaging comments about the hospital.
The NLRB Office of General Counsel concluded that the former was lawful under the NLRB’s Boeing standard:

We conclude that the Commitment to My Co-workers document is a lawful civility policy. … [T]here is a distinction between regulations on what employees can say about their coworkers as compared to what they can say about their employer. … [W]hile protected concerted activity may involve criticism of fellow employees or supervisors, the requirement that such criticism remain civil does not unduly burden the core right to criticize. Instead, it burdens the peripheral Section 7 right of criticizing other employees in a demeaning or inappropriate manner.

Balanced against the minimal impact on Section 7 rights of these types of civility rules, employers have significant interests in maintaining such rules. These interests include the employer’s legal responsibility to maintain a workplace free of unlawful harassment, its substantial interest in preventing violence, and its interest in avoiding unnecessary conflict or a toxic work environment that could interfere with productivity … and other legitimate business goals.

While the latter was unlawful:

A rule prohibiting disparagement of the employer has a significant impact on NLRA rights Concerted criticism of an employer’s employment and compensation practices is central to rights guaranteed by the NLRA. A general rule against disparaging the company, absent limiting context or language, would cause employees to refrain from publicly criticizing employment problems, including on social media. Such criticism is often the seed that becomes protected concerted activity for improving working conditions, the core of Section 7.

The entire memo is worth reading for a lesson on how the NLRB analyzes work rules under Boeing. And, if you haven’t had an employment lawyer review your handbook or other work rules in the past few years, this is as good of a reminder as any that there is no time like the present.

Posted on

Mental Health and the National Basketball Association

mental health, National Basteball Association

National Basketball Association Commissioner Adam Silver made an important comment this week at the MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference in Boston, saying that a lot of players are “unhappy” and acknowledging the very real impact of mental health problems on people, no matter how much fame or money they have.

As a benefits writer who occasionally covers mental health, I think it’s genuinely positive when a powerful figure makes a straightforward, sympathetic comment about mental health issues.

Still, I don’t agree with everything Silver said. According to CBS Sports, Silver said, “We are living in a time of anxiety. I think it’s a direct result of social media. A lot of players are unhappy.”

I contend that this argument is too simplistic. I’ve seen this argument before in research and reading, this concern that technology or social media is making people more depressed or anxious.

I prefer a more nuanced approach. Yes, social media has become increasingly ubiquitous over recent years and so has this trend of people being more open about mental health problems, but this sounds more like correlation than causation. That’s a topic worthy of more research.

Mental illness isn’t as simple as X caused Y. Being too focused on social media and technology’s impacts could blind you from other factors that could influence mental health, like personal or professional problems, going through a traumatic event or something physical like brain chemistry. In the context of the NBA, there are understandably some stressors specific to being a professional athlete.

I also don’t believe that mental illnesses are any more or less common than they have been historically. At least I haven’t seen or heard any convincing evidence of that. We need to acknowledge the very real fact that because of stigma, this wasn’t something that people talked about for a long time.

The lack of public acknowledgement doesn’t mean it did not exist. Whenever someone makes the “technology/social media causes mental problems” argument, I wonder if they’ve ever stopped to consider historical context. I wonder if they truly think depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder and panic attacks just didn’t happen before. That sounds naïve to me.

Regardless of my preference for a more nuanced take on the causes of mental health problems, I love seeing that the league commissioner is talking about it. This also led to me read about the NBA’s mental wellness program and the organization’s decision to hire a director of mental health and wellness.

The details of the mental health program are interesting. This story references the league’s old policies to deal with mental health problems, often by team physicians who had no expertise in mental health.

It talks about the NBA’s decision to create a wellness program and the time and considerations that went into it. Basically, this is a comprehensive case study that also brings up some philosophical questions about wellness programs.

It also brings up a noteworthy point about privacy and transparency. The wellness program is run independently of the teams, league and players’ union. According to the article, Michele Roberts, executive director of the National Basketball Players Association said, “We don’t want players to be discouraged from getting help when they need it because they’re concerned that it will get back to the team, or it may affect their play, or it may affect their next contract.” Yet, the article continues, “even that can be debated when it comes to wellness.”

Data privacy and health privacy are topics I care about, which is why it’s intriguing to find debates like this. This story makes a point that when more people are open and transparent about mental health, there’s less stigma.

Wanting anonymity when you’re seeking mental health treatment helps “contribute to the continued stigma.” Further, one former player expressed concern that when people want anonymity, people like him are then persecuted for being up front.

I get this to a certain degree, and I understand this person’s idealized version of the world where everyone can be open about everything and there’s no judgment or consequences. But mostly I prefer to be realistic.

In any organization’s wellness program, privacy should be a clear choice. Health information is private, and no employee should feel pressured to talk publicly about something they want to keep private. HIPAA exists for a reason. And, yes, HIPAA doesn’t apply to many wellness programs, but that doesn’t mean that organizations should respect employee health privacy any less.

As employers get increasingly involved in employees’ physical, mental and financial health, it’s worth a reminder that many people want privacy, and that a respectful employer doesn’t pry into people’s personal data.

Posted on

Ensuring #MeToo Movement Advances Diversity in Leadership

Progress has been made in terms of women’s equality and protection over the past 10 years.metoo anniversary

In fact, it was recently the 10th anniversary of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the first bill signed into law by President Barack Obama in 2009.

While there have been significant strides in reducing gender bias, harassment and sexual misconduct, clearly there is still work to be done. The #MeToo movement has been an important driver in bringing to light numerous cases of sexual abuse and misconduct.

However, it has also had the unintended consequence of causing men to refrain from interacting with women for fear of retaliation. Considering that male executives play a key role in advancing women into higher levels of leadership, this fear must be taken seriously because if unaddressed it leads to workplaces where there are fewer opportunities for women’s career advancement and informal coaching. Bloomberg recently conducted interviews with more than 30 senior executives that suggest many are startled by the #MeToo movement — some for good cause while others succumb to fear and retreat from supporting leadership diversity.

This is a huge problem for women, men, the companies they work for and society as a whole. When men shy away from mentoring women and helping them advance in their careers, it hurts everyone. Likewise, it is shameful and unacceptable when women are objectified, threatened or harmed.

In both cases no one wins. The outcome of the #MeToo movement should not be that we reverse progress on increasing diversity in leadership but that we are creating opportunities for women and men to thrive.

This shift needs to happen at the organizational level with changes implemented by leaders so that men can invest in the career advancement of women without fearing they will be classified as #MeToo participants and so that women will have confidence that they are working in a safe environment. These changes should include:

  • Providing sexual harassment and communications training for men and women. Employees and managers need to understand what is acceptable and what is not. Men and women respond to nuance differently, and everyone needs to understand what behavior crosses the line. Insight on how to be friendly, kind and foster appropriate relationships will benefit both men and women at all levels within the organization.
  • Ensuring there are confidential reporting protocols in place. All employees need to have a clear and confidential venue to report misconduct so they will not be retaliated against by their colleagues. Similarly, they need to know that because they are empowered to report any misconduct (perceived or overt), their concerns will be taken seriously and senior leadership will take appropriate and supportive action. By formalizing the process, men will feel confident that if a woman retaliates and misuses her power in a destructive way there is a recourse. Both men and women should not be driven by fear but rather they should understand that if they adhere to clearly specified boundaries and are treated unfairly, they will be supported.
  • Making evaluations less ambiguous. We know that when there is ambiguity in assessments it can lead to bias. An article in the Harvard Business Review sums it up as, “Without structure, people are more likely to rely on gender, race and other stereotypes when making decisions — instead of thoughtfully constructing assessments using agreed-upon processes and criteria that are consistently applied across all employees.” When managers use comparable data to evaluate employees and include insight from subordinates, peers and other leaders as well as self-evaluations it will help ensure that constructive criticism relayed to a subordinate is not viewed as subjective, but in fact is based on data and information gathered from multiple sources.
  • Rewarding positive behavior and swiftly addressing inappropriate or illegal actions. By recognizing men and women who serve as successful models of mentoring colleagues, leaders will gain confidence and others will better understand the best way to help both men and women advance in their careers. Likewise, punishing the bad actors will improve working conditions for everyone.

Men and women are asking some important and tough questions about the workplace. Women have earned a seat at the management table and are rightfully demanding it. The #MeToo movement has been a powerful force for change in bringing to light sexual harassment and misconduct and removing perpetrators from positions of power. It’s time to capitalize on that momentum and change our workplace policies — starting from the top down — so that we can turn the #MeToo era into a movement that is constructive, encourages human interaction and supports appropriate career advancement.