The best university to study at, the best employer to work for... there are numerous rankings out there, but what difference does it really make for people working/studying at an organisation?
For some reason I have always been attracted to this (BS) discourse, and it was no different this morning when I've seen Duncan Smith's post at LinkedIn on Employer of Choice:
Employee feedback sessions I've run have been much more effective when we start with "what's good about working here?", then go to "what are the challenges?" and finish with "what could you do to improve things?". Needless to say, people have more to say about the problems, and sometimes struggle to take ownership of solutions -- it's easier to blame "management", or someone else, than to figure out how to take responsibility. To me, part of being a real EOC would be fostering an environment in which employees were encouraged to contribute improvements as a matter of course. What's the trade-off between real engagement and management control?
MY RESPONSE:
Unfortunately seems it's quite common that rhetoric which echoes in the media and/or upper echelons of a management is hardly reflected in opinions of majority who work in an organisation (what they say, and what they do are rarely the same). In my experience, even true for SME - which is truly a shame.
Duncan, I love your definition of a 'real' EOC: "fostering an environment in which employees were encouraged to contribute improvements as a matter of course". And to answer your question directly: I don't see it as a trade of (at all?).
A scenario for a 'real' EOC:
Management asks the type of questions Duncan suggested (i.e. "what's good about working here?", then go to "what are the challenges?" and finish with "what could you/WE do to improve things?") – Furthermore, management requests for ANONYMOUS answers in order to improve the richness of information provided, and to help eliminate biases during the feedback evaluation.
1. The exercise is conducted periodicity; Say once a year to collect the feedback (if big organisation, it might be more useful at department/region level)
2. The feedback is communicated back to employees
3. Management acts upon the feedback
Through this exercise, the management would actually have the chance to improve the control while simultaneously enhancing employee engagement.
-Out of so many people providing (independent) feedback a common themes will surface (experienced employees), and even some unique gems might be highlighted (likely from newbies).
-Management will know exactly what to do in order to improve employees’ satisfaction; where, satisfaction => commitment => productivity => revenue.
(On this note: don't you find it funny when few lock themselves behind the closed door and brainstorm for days on what many on the other side of the door want. Here's an idea: how bout just ask for a change? - Alas, seems Voltaire was not kidding when he said that "Common sense is not so common.")
-Employees will feel engaged, and will be much more likely to commit to the subsequent decisions made, as they will feel the ownership of the decisions (i.e. ( not all) decisions were simply 'forced' top-down).
- Management can even use the method to (deceivingly) piggy-back their own directive that they wanted to push through, and say (lie) that it came from the feedback.
This exact approach worked fabulously in a teacher-students relationship. Please tell me why similar couldn't work in a commercial setting?
As the bottom line in this discussion (where salary and many other aspects are ignored), what really matters is the involvement: everybody likes to be asked, to have the opportunity to express themselves (their opinion). And in today's society of on-line social networks that's true more than ever. More and more of today's employees not just have the habit of expressing their opinion, but they need/demand the opportunity to do so.
And if that wasn't enough: two heads - in big majority of circumstances - are better than one. As nicely elaborated in 'The Wisdom of Crowds' by James Surowiecki.
Hope to see more 'real' EOC candidates out there.
Cheers...!
Ps: Duncan, two follow up questions for you, and anyone else willing to share their opinion:
a) In your definition of a real EOC you say: "To me, PART of being a real EOC..." What other ‘parts’ would you like to see in a real EOC?
b) What's your answer to your own question: "What's the trade-off between real engagement and management control?"
Much Appreciated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPDATED, 5th October 09.
According to this article (based on a Corporate Executive Board study of employee engagement survey results) employees at the best companies rated each of the following characteristics at least 20% higher than any other category, compared to employees at other organizations:
1. Belief in Leadership
2. Personal Connection to Company Strategy
3. Innovative Culture
4. Accountability
5. Emphasis on Achievement
By: Dianne Jacobs
For some reason I have always been attracted to this (BS) discourse, and it was no different this morning when I've seen Duncan Smith's post at LinkedIn on Employer of Choice:
Employee feedback sessions I've run have been much more effective when we start with "what's good about working here?", then go to "what are the challenges?" and finish with "what could you do to improve things?". Needless to say, people have more to say about the problems, and sometimes struggle to take ownership of solutions -- it's easier to blame "management", or someone else, than to figure out how to take responsibility. To me, part of being a real EOC would be fostering an environment in which employees were encouraged to contribute improvements as a matter of course. What's the trade-off between real engagement and management control?
MY RESPONSE:
Unfortunately seems it's quite common that rhetoric which echoes in the media and/or upper echelons of a management is hardly reflected in opinions of majority who work in an organisation (what they say, and what they do are rarely the same). In my experience, even true for SME - which is truly a shame.
Duncan, I love your definition of a 'real' EOC: "fostering an environment in which employees were encouraged to contribute improvements as a matter of course". And to answer your question directly: I don't see it as a trade of (at all?).
A scenario for a 'real' EOC:
Management asks the type of questions Duncan suggested (i.e. "what's good about working here?", then go to "what are the challenges?" and finish with "what could you/WE do to improve things?") – Furthermore, management requests for ANONYMOUS answers in order to improve the richness of information provided, and to help eliminate biases during the feedback evaluation.
1. The exercise is conducted periodicity; Say once a year to collect the feedback (if big organisation, it might be more useful at department/region level)
2. The feedback is communicated back to employees
3. Management acts upon the feedback
Through this exercise, the management would actually have the chance to improve the control while simultaneously enhancing employee engagement.
-Out of so many people providing (independent) feedback a common themes will surface (experienced employees), and even some unique gems might be highlighted (likely from newbies).
-Management will know exactly what to do in order to improve employees’ satisfaction; where, satisfaction => commitment => productivity => revenue.
(On this note: don't you find it funny when few lock themselves behind the closed door and brainstorm for days on what many on the other side of the door want. Here's an idea: how bout just ask for a change? - Alas, seems Voltaire was not kidding when he said that "Common sense is not so common.")
-Employees will feel engaged, and will be much more likely to commit to the subsequent decisions made, as they will feel the ownership of the decisions (i.e. ( not all) decisions were simply 'forced' top-down).
- Management can even use the method to (deceivingly) piggy-back their own directive that they wanted to push through, and say (lie) that it came from the feedback.
This exact approach worked fabulously in a teacher-students relationship. Please tell me why similar couldn't work in a commercial setting?
As the bottom line in this discussion (where salary and many other aspects are ignored), what really matters is the involvement: everybody likes to be asked, to have the opportunity to express themselves (their opinion). And in today's society of on-line social networks that's true more than ever. More and more of today's employees not just have the habit of expressing their opinion, but they need/demand the opportunity to do so.
And if that wasn't enough: two heads - in big majority of circumstances - are better than one. As nicely elaborated in 'The Wisdom of Crowds' by James Surowiecki.
Hope to see more 'real' EOC candidates out there.
Cheers...!
Ps: Duncan, two follow up questions for you, and anyone else willing to share their opinion:
a) In your definition of a real EOC you say: "To me, PART of being a real EOC..." What other ‘parts’ would you like to see in a real EOC?
b) What's your answer to your own question: "What's the trade-off between real engagement and management control?"
Much Appreciated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPDATED, 5th October 09.
According to this article (based on a Corporate Executive Board study of employee engagement survey results) employees at the best companies rated each of the following characteristics at least 20% higher than any other category, compared to employees at other organizations:
1. Belief in Leadership
2. Personal Connection to Company Strategy
3. Innovative Culture
4. Accountability
5. Emphasis on Achievement
By: Dianne Jacobs
No comments:
Post a Comment