Three Types of People to Fire Immediately

Want a more innovative company? Get rid of these folks. Today.

Show of hands: How many of you out there in Innovation land have gotten the “what took you so long?” question from your staff when you finally said goodbye to a teammate who was seemingly always part of problems instead of solutions?

We imagine a whole bunch of hands. (Yep, ours went up, too.)

These people—and we’re going to talk about three specific types in a minute—passive-aggressively block innovation from happening and will suck the energy out of any organization.

When confronted with any of the following three people—and you have found it impossible to change their ways, say goodbye.

Find out who the three types are in this great piece by G. Michael Maddock and Raphael Louis Vitón on Bloomberg Businessweek

US companies blame unemployment on skills gap

Drew Greenblatt has been looking for more than a year for three sheet-metal set-up operators to work day, night or weekend shifts.

The president of Marlin Steel Wire Products, a company in Baltimore with 30 employees, Mr Greenblatt says his inability to find qualified workers is hampering his business’s growth. “If I could fill those positions, I could raise our annual revenues from $5m to $7m,” he says.

He is offering a salary of more than $80,000 with overtime, including health and pension benefits. Yet in spite of extensive advertising, he has had no qualified applicants. He is trying to train some of his unskilled staff but says none has the ability or drive to complete the training.

Mr Greenblatt’s predicament speaks to one of the biggest economic debates about today’s 8.6 per cent US unemployment rate: is it merely a cyclical problem that will shrink as demand recovers? Or is it something deeper and more structural, a “mismatch” between the skills workers have and those companies need?

Read more at ft.com

The Engagement Factor Blog

Employee Engagement: The Hard Facts by Brad Federman

In the autumn of 2008, David MacLeod and Nita Clark were asked by UK’s Secretary of State for Business to conduct an in-depth review of employee engagement and determine if there was value in the concept. Specifically can employee engagement help organizations in down or globally competitive economies?

Their answer was an “unequivocal yes.”

Some highlights from the report:
Those organizations with the bottom quartile engagement scores had up to:

51% more turnover
51% more inventory shrinkage
62% more accidents
32.7% decline in operating income over 12 months
Those organizations in the top quartile saw:
12% higher customer advocacy
18% higher productivity
12% higher profitability
Earnings Per Share (EPS) 2.6 times greater than the bottom quartile
19.2% improvement in operating income over 12 months

One bank found branches that had an increase in engagement levels saw a 16% increase in profit margin over those with lower engagement level scores.

Engaged employees take 2.69 sick days per year versus 6.19 days taken by those disengaged.
70% of engaged employees have a good understanding of how to meet customer needs, while only 17% of the disengaged do.

Other results include the impact employee engagement has on innovation and change. The verdict is in…ignore employee engagement at your own peril. Employee engagement is more than a touchy feely subject. Employee engagement is more than doing the right thing. Employee engagement is a real competitive advantage. Build your case now!

To download the report go to: http://www.performancepointllc.com/Employee_Engagement.html

For more information regarding Employee Engagement the book go to: http://www.engagementleader.com/