What do we value most about our organisations and our work?

Here is a word cloud of employee comments from a number of recent employee surveys we have conducted. It looks like, as research evidence would suggest, that colleagues, team work, support, the working environment and making a difference may be those factors which employees value most.

What would be the one change which would improve your experience at work?

As you would expect, there are some similar answers here. However, notably management and communication are among the most popular responses. Pay doesn’t feature highly in what people value most about their jobs, however it is obviously an important factor and thus many would like it to improve. This is unsurprising in the current climate.

In line with research on employee satisfaction and engagement, we could argue from this (albeit crude) analysis that there are intrinsic factors which we value most about our work – making a difference, the atmosphere, a team ethos, relationships. Then there are other factors like management, pay, working hours and the physical working environment which may not make as significant a difference to our level of engagement IF we feel that they are satisfactory. However if we are not satisfied with these factors then we give them more attention.

Therefore for organisations the goal should be to make sure your management, salaries and working conditions are good enough to satisfy your employees, but put more energy into fostering the culture, relationships, team work, support and making sure every employee knows that they are making a difference. These are the factors which will push employees from satisfied to engaged.

Whilst this all sounds rosy in theory, current research suggests that UK businesses are not in a position to benefit due to a lack of good management and leadership, and consequently low levels of employee engagement. New research from the CIPD found that “three quarters of employers report a lack of leadership and management skills and too many managers have an inflated opinion of their ability to manage people”.

These worrying findings reflect our own recent study of UK managers which found that only 36% of managers feel that their business is in safe hands, and three quarters feel that improving the quality of leadership would make a difference to the future prospects of their organisations. Our research suggests that this lack of confidence reflects a change in leaders’ focus to a more short-term oriented, task-focused approach. Whilst this has been shown to be an effective stance during tough business times, research has also found that if this style is prolonged it can be detrimental to employee engagement, discretionary effort and organisational performance.

Therefore it sounds like there is a simple answer: leaders need to shift their focus to a longer-term, more relationship oriented style. However, like the CIPD study, our research also suggested that the shift in leadership style we have seen may not just be a function of the situation, but also of leaders lacking capabilities: leaders seem to be playing to what they do best, though not necessarily what the situation requires of them. It is clear from our research that managers realise the importance of leadership and management to the success of their organisations. It is equally clear that in huge swathes of the UK economy this realisation is not leading to action.

We believe organisations need to take 5 steps to tackle the problem:

1. Measure the quality of their current management and leadership, and their impact on employee engagement.

2. Measure the potential of their managers to develop further.

3. Invest intensively to develop those who can improve; those who cannot need to be redeployed or removed.

4. Measure the impact of these interventions on employee engagement, productivity and performance.

5. Recognise the return on investment in financial terms, so as to secure commitment to continue this cycle over time.

The tools to do this accurately and cost effectively exist, but are currently underused. This may sound like a risky or indulgent strategy given the current climate, but all of the evidence shows that in fact, the time for this change is now.

It is now widely accepted that personality is linked to leadership emergence, behaviour and effectiveness. However, it is argued that the extent to which leader behaviour reflects personality is partly determined by the leader regulating his/her behaviour in an automatic versus controlled fashion. Default tendencies can be overridden by deliberate choices and it the deliberate editing of behaviour that can sometimes distort the leader personality- behaviour picture. It could be argued that the likelihood of someone regulating their behaviour is a function of two factors: personal insight (the extent to which they are aware of their strengths and limitations) and motivation (how much effort they are prepared to exert in order to edit their behaviour to ensure it has the desired impact). When someone is stressed or tired and their social guard is down, their attention is focused on recovering from the challenging situation and hence they have less mental resources and energy for behavioural editing. In other words, knowledge of their strengths and weaknesses becomes less accessible and they have less motivation for managing their behaviour. In such situations, their true personality often unfolds and this can sometimes mean unproductive behaviours. The implication of this argument is twofold; firstly, it is important that leaders have insight into their strengths and weaknesses as leaders, data which can be gleaned from a leadership assessment, 360 and personality measures such as the NEO and Hogan Development Survey; secondly, it is important that leaders know what situations and psychological states cause them to let their social guard down (such as a high workload or feeling tired) so that they know when potentially unhelpful behaviours may emerge.

There has been a mass of research exploring the link between personality and leadership effectiveness. The general consensus is that personality (which is often thought to comprise five factors - neuroticism, extraversion, openness to new experiences, agreeableness and conscientiousness) determines how effective, and more importantly the type of leader, one is likely to be; someone high on openness is probably strategic, a conscientious leader is likely to be strong operationally, and the extravert and agreeable leader is well suited to relationships. Yet recent empirical research provides compelling evidence that the personality-leader effectiveness relationship is not direct but rather mediated by leader behaviours. The rationale for these findings is that personality traits reflect behavioural tendencies, a predisposition to act in a particular way, which subsequently influence leadership style and effectiveness. These findings carry important implications for leader selection and development; it could be argued that personality questionnaires alone provide an incomplete picture to recruiters and should be supplemented by some behavioural data from past colleagues; a leadership assessment would probably benefit from including a 360 so that the leader has insight into how others perceive them and areas of strength and development based on past behaviour.

It is widely accepted that employee engagement has a direct effect on employee productivity and organisational performance in the form of ROI, quality and production. It is therefore imperative to focus on employee engagement during difficult economic times.

Yet challenging economic times often mean pay freezes and sometimes increases in workload as a result of a reduction in headcount. Organisations may fear that this could lead to reduced employee engagement and subsequent declines in quality and production. However, it is important to remember some of the tenets of prominent motivational theories. Herzberg argues that motivation is determined not only by hygiene factors (salary, working conditions) but also motivators (achievement, recognition, status, promotional opportunities, responsibility). Although hygiene factors prevent dissatisfaction, it is actually the presence of motivators that increases job satisfaction, motivation and engagement. Alderfer developed the Existence Relatedness Growth theory. Existence needs constitute physiological and security needs; relatedness encompasses the need to belong and develop interpersonal relationships; self-esteem and self-actualisation needs are conceptualised as growth needs. More than one level of need can motivate behaviour simultaneously. These two theories suggest that there is an additional lever in which organisations can pull to enhance employee engagement during difficult economic times - provide staff with greater status and responsibility and they are likely to realise their self-esteem needs and reciprocate with enhanced performance.

So what is the difference between satisfied employees and engaged employees?

The important difference between job satisfaction and engagement is that the former is an attitude and the latter is considered more behavioural. A satisfied employee who is not engaged may not be committed to the organization in the long term and may not go the extra mile for the organization. Therefore engagement is about commitment and connection to the organization, as well as motivation to perform well and put your all into your work. This is what makes engaged employees, rather than simply satisfied employees, the Holy Grail for organizational performance. An engaged employee is more likely to make a sustained positive difference within their role and the organization.

Why would employees be satisfied but not engaged?

The SHRM's research suggests that training and development may play an important part in this, with only around 40% satisfied with their career development opportunities. This may lead to a decrease in motivation to perform to the best of your abilities and also a desire to move on from the organization – both of which may have negative effects on organizational performance.

Employees also seem to want a closer relationship with management and leaders, with a more open and collaborative relationship preferred to the traditional top-down structures. This may require fresh thinking and development for leaders and managers, but could help tap into the talent, skills and ideas of employees within your whole organization.

SHRM's 2011 Job Satisfaction and Engagement Research Report

Click for more information on:
Employee Engagement
Leadership Development
Top Team Development
Assessing and Developing Talent

A relaxed and informal seminar to give delegates the opportunity to share experiences, network and discuss the key challenges ahead in the implementation and ongoing management of appraisal and revalidation.

Book your place: http://revalidation.premierit.com/roadshow

The American Academy on Communication in Healthcare has
announced that Dr. David Pendleton, Dr. Peter Tate, Dr. Peter Havelock and Dr Theo Schofield have been selected as the recipients of the 2011 Lynn Payer Award for outstanding contributions to the literature on the theory, practice and teaching of effective healthcare communication and related skills.

The four co - authored the seminal book The Consultation which was revised and published as The New Consultation (Oxford University Press 2003)

The award will be presented at the International Conference on
Communication in Healthcare (ICCH) in Chicago this October.

Lynn Payer was a journalist and managing editor of Medical Encounter for over a decade. She was the author of the classic book, "Medicine and Culture" and wrote hundreds of news stories and features during her career.

This week I presented the results of an employee survey to a long standing client organisation that, in common with so many others, has to deal with the effects of the difficult economic conditions. They are in the middle of a period of review and reorganisation to improve efficiency and effectiveness, and there have had to be some tough decisions made.

The survey results revealed that faith in the leadership team had significantly dropped since their last survey. Most other factors including communication, reward and management had held up well. The question I found myself pondering driving back to the office was 'is it inevitable that when people feel insecure that they will lose faith in the leadership and ultimately their trust in the employer?' When I presented the results to the Executive team there was a feeling amongst them of "we expected this, it could have been worse, given all that is going on."

No one needs to be told that leading through difficult times with the attendant focus on cost control including workforce costs is challenging. But is it possible to maintain or even increase faith, trust and engagement in an organisation where job security is falling and colleagues may have lost their jobs? We have seen some clients' level of engagement hold up better than others, and one or two who have done this particularly well.

Clearly the way these processes of introducing change are managed will influence employees' experience and attitudes. I am more interested, in this piece, on the role of leadership and in particular how they communicate to the workforce as I think this is the critical factor that makes the difference.

What have we learned through employee feedback? Firstly there is a direct correlation between visibility /accessibility of the leadership team and confidence in them. Face to face is clearly the best and most effective form of communication. Frequency of communication is important; and it is important that it works both ways.

Change and an uncertain future is likely to impact on clarity of vision and purpose. Organisations that score well on vision and purpose are therefore more likely to score well on leadership so it is imperative that the leadership team communicates very clearly and consistently on what we are trying to achieve, why we need to change and how we are trying to achieve it- and here we are not talking about financial targets and budgets.

Most leaders will say; "yes we have done that, we get out there, we explained and yes it does make a difference but people are still worried. They might accept it needs to be done but they are not happy, maybe not hostile but they have become somewhat disengaged and distracted." Sounds to me a bit like damage limitation.

What can we learn from those that have done better? How can we move people from being somewhat disengaged to engaged? The answer to that question may be found in the quality and structure of the leadership communication. Some old-fashioned 'Churchillian' oratory and eloquence will help and it needs to provide answers to the employees' five fundamental questions:

•1. Where are we now and how did we get here?

•2. What is our vision and purpose going forward?

•3. What do we need to do to achieve this?

•4. Who will benefit from our hard work and success and most importantly will I?

•5. What will be our dearly held values in meeting these challenges?

So is it inevitable that engagement, trust and faith will fall when redundancies are taking place, opportunities are scarce and rewards are less generous than normal? I think we have enough evidence to say that the answer to the question is no. There is no doubt that when confidence takes a bashing it is likely there will be at least a wobble. But with great leadership confidence, trust and engagement can be restored and maybe even enhanced.

An interesting piece of research has been published by Globoforce and the Society of Human Resource Management linking employee engagement with employee recognition.

One of the themes of the report is that although almost every employer (99%) in their global survey of 700 see employee engagement as a key challenge, and that the vast majority do some sort of tracking of employee engagement (86%), surprisingly employee recognition programmes are tied to corporate values and financial goals in less than half. The survey also said that more than half of HR Leaders felt that their managers and supervisors did not acknowledge and appreciate their employees enough. They also struggle to measure the ROI on employee recognition programmes- not surprising really.

In our experience organisations that benefit from very high levels of employee engagement have not achieved this through employee recognition programmes. Whilst this could be part of the mix, high levels of employee engagement are achieved when employees are really into what they are doing, have a belief in the organization, are encouraged to contribute fully and feel supportive of its purpose. They trust the organisation to look after them fairly and generously. The relationship with the employer is less mercenary than it is for employees with lower levels of engagement for whom reward and incentive is more important.

I wonder if the research failed to recognise this .