When Bosses Get Good Scores

"The persistent, spirited craving we have for connection, meaning, relevance, peace -- can't really be abandoned because from 8-to-5 we have a job, can it? More and more and more we see people bringing their humanity to work, and finding ways to specify what's really important. Less is more. Seems to me the only time more is more is when it's more of less." (my italics)   

                --Lisa Gates comment on Goals, Clarity, and Less

Headlines often highlight the negative, or questionable, in order to grab our attention. It works.

We're so used to it that when I see one that puts a smile on my face, it actually has more impact.

Here are statistics that say things aren't quite as dismal as most headline writers would like us to think:

More than half--58%--of U.S. workers have confidence in their company's leadership. A full 66% say that they would recommend their firm to their friends who are seeking a job.

Those figures come from a survey conducted by NetReflector, a company that offers tools for gathering customer and employee feedback. The survey included 9,351 people in 10 different countries. I'm not sure of the exact amount from the U.S. survey population.

What does this mean?

We're always seeing headlines or journal articles about difficulty in recruiting and retaining talent. If these stats are true, then companies would seem to have a lot going for them. Additionally, the NetReflector folks point out that high employee satisfaction usually equates with high customer satisfaction. Not bad.

Is there a hidden challenge in there?

I think so. I did a post about what job seekers want. The top 3 items were interesting, challenging work; rewards and recognition for accomplishments; and a chance for quick career growth and advancement.

The NetReflector survey asked "what could bosses do better?" The highest percentage of responses stated "use my skills and abilities better." And just under half (49%) felt that what they did actually contributed to the company's mission.

If we can assume that this is an accurate representation, then supervisors and managers can probably boost their effectiveness even more by focusing on two things:

1. Creating assignments that offer some stretch goals and professional growth.

2. Intentionally talking about how the work unit's efforts tie into the company's overall mission.

I'm thinking that if managers can focus on just a couple of meaningful things at a time--instead of being faced with multiple programmatic fads--they can make a difference.

What do you think?

 

         

Comments

[Beth Robinson]

In regards to your second point, I know that every time I have gone into the plant with a new product and started talking about why we're making this one or how it will be used that the operator pays very close attention and often asks additional questions. This isn't "humoring the chemist". These basic hourly workers genuinely want to know. A few times I've even had them come back to me on a subsequent visit and make a follow-up comment of some type.

Your suggestion for managers focusing on imparting the mission would need to exist up and down the entire chain to really be effective, which I'm sure is how you meant it, otherwise lower-level managers in some functional areas wouldn't have the information, or wouldn't have it in a way that mattered to their reports.

[Steve Roesler]

Beth,

It's encouraging and confirming to know that the point made is, in fact, used successfully by other practicing managers.

Adults want one thing when it comes to making decisions, on or off the job: truthful information. Rank is inconsequential. And when people know "why", as you've taken the time to impart, then they are able to make suggestions because they have a context for what's happening.

And yes: The implication is for this to happen everywhere.

Thanks for the first-hand example, Beth. . .

[Michelle Malay Carter]

Hi Steve,

Congratulations on your Best of Business Blogs award!

I think you are right on with this post. One thing I would add is that putting the long-term talent management/career development load on the manager's shoulders might be too tall an order.

I would suggest instituting a two-level accountability model with managers-once-removed having specific talent management accountabilities in relation to their direct reports-once-removed.

In this system, managers are accountable for coaching and training to get their employees fully contributing to TODAY's work. Managers-once-removed are accountable for planning, mentoring and preparing their direct reports once removed regarding long term career development (FUTURE assignments)

For more on this, you can visit: http://www.missionmindedmanagement.com/succession-management-whose-eyes-are-focused-on-talent

Regards,

Michelle Malay Carter

[Nancy E. Lewis]

We are rolling out several tools for employees to learn how to take a more active role in guiding their growth, creating stretch goals, etc., to complement our performance development process plan. We ditched our rating system two years ago in favor of the pdp model, and have gained great traction in some areas of the company (it's automated and pretty user friendly). We are still educating the employees who are still bleeding from the rating system... Meanwhile, we are creating avenues for growth where employees can safely "kick the tires" of progression and evaluate what that means to their career success. Our managers are doing a much better job in tying performance to overall company goals because of a monthly newsletter just for them encouraging them to do just that.

Our dream is to create an Employment 101 training class - mainly to teach employees to expect and embrace accountability, and to demand it from their managers.

[RobynM]

Steve, I feel you're on the right track with the idea of allowing managers to focus on a smaller number of talent management tasks. My experience has been that when a company pays any attention to talent management, they often go overboard - forcing managers to go to seminars and conferences, take classes, attend meetings, put together metrics and all kinds of stuff when those managers should be putting time into figuring out how to best engage and grow the talent they have.

As a manager, I also found that when my staff understood what they did as "customer service" for the rest of the company, they were more enthusiastic and more inclined to offer opinions and suggestions for improvements. They also saw my scheduling advanced training for them as an opportunity rather than a duty and even approached me to ask about training for areas I hadn't considered.

It made coming to work very pleasant.

PS: I can't resist saying that the "only time more is more" is at the Olympics Opening Ceremony!

[Steve Roesler]

Michelle,

We are again muy sympatico. I guess I didn't go into enough detail given that this is a blog post.

Am in the midst of designing a talent management program with a global company and, in fact, addressed the management issue. Managers aren't going to do something-even if it's a good thing--when they see that it will overwhelm them with extra administrative work.

So, we designed a way for them to be intimately involved but strategically; there is another group who does the things you mentioned in the ways you mentioned; a slightly different configuration that fits this particular company.

Thanks for the reference; am headed to check it out.

Steve

[Steve Roesler]

Robyn,

Awesome play on words--and true.

When it comes to talent management, the buzzword has frequently led to bloated programs that aren't a genuine match for what an organization is really about and is trying to accomplish as a result of TM. Part of the solution is for company's to carefully define what they really mean and are trying to accomplish. They will find that in many ways, the solutions are:

a. simpler than they thought
b. already being used by some group ins some part of their organization and can be replicated or tweaked

[Lisa Gates]

Yikes. A quote by me? I really think the take away from your post is your post itself. You exemplify in your post what you're asking people to consider in their work. You acknowledged a commenter (me) much like you would an employee or a coworker. The result was even more engagement by me, leading to more contribution, connection, relevance, context.

I'm tied to your overall mission as a blogger, as well as your work in the world. And you're always giving me assignments (posts) that stretch my thinking and personal development.

Where's the darn book?

:-)

[Steve Roesler]

Nancy,

I'm smiling widely because I'm sitting here in the midst of finishing up a design for a client that is very similar to what you are implementing and also includes the "101" part.

My experience with these important efforts is to keep it simple for the managers by maximizing engagement around important activities and minimizing any hassle that they don't need on the administrative end.

Keep up the important work. . .

[Steve Roesler]

Lisa the Quotable:

Hey, that is an encouraging and descriptive passage on how this is working for you; and, it is helpful to me in order to understand how people may be experiencing the blog.

As for the book: gathering material, adding research, and am thinking about asking readers here what they would like to see included based on their experiences and learnings at All Things Workplace.