Originally published in www.HarvardBusiness.org.
Tuesday August 4, 2009
By Peter Bregman (reprinted with author permission)
Win, my mountain biking partner, and I looked down the ten-foot drop.
"Should be fun," he said as we backed away from the edge and climbed up the hill to get some runway. I wasn't so sure. He climbed on his bike, pedaled to get a little speed, and took the plunge, effortlessly gliding over the rocks, roots, and stumps.
My turn. I felt the adrenaline rush as I clipped my feet into the pedals. My heart was beating fast. My hands were shaking. I took a few tentative pedal strokes forward and inched up. I felt my front tire go over the edge and I started to descend, checking my speed as I weaved around the obstacles.
Suddenly I hit something and my bike abruptly stopped. But I didn't. I flew over my handlebars and ended up on the ground, lying beside my bike, front wheel still spinning.
"Dude," Win laughed, "You OK?"
"Yeah." I brushed the dirt off my elbows. "What happened?"
Neither of us knew. So I picked up my bike, climbed up the chute, and did it again. Not just the chute, the whole thing: the adrenaline, the weaving around the obstacles, the abrupt stop, the flying over the handlebars.
"Dude," Win laughed again. I was officially in the movie Groundhog Day. I climbed back up the chute and did it again. And again. I must have done it five times before I figured out what was stopping me.
Me.
A mountain bike has to be going fast enough to make it over an obstacle. The bigger the obstacle, the more momentum the bike needs to get over it. There was one big unavoidable rock, and each time I came upon it I unconsciously squeezed on my brake. That slowed me down just enough to turn the rock into an insurmountable wall.
I needed more speed to keep moving. So I climbed back up and did it again. I stared at the rock and picked up speed. I kept my eyes on it right to the point where I squeezed on my brakes and flipped over my handlebars again.
I knew what I had to do but I couldn't do it. It was just too scary. As long as I was focused on the rock, I couldn't prevent myself from braking.
But I wasn't ready to give up. So I climbed back up and tried one more time. This time, I decided to focus ahead of me - ten feet in front of where I was at any point in time. So I would see the rock when it was ten feet away, but I wouldn't be looking at it when I was going over it.
It worked. I slid easily over the rock and made it down the chute without falling.
I'm a huge proponent of living in the present. If you pay attention to what's happening now, the future will take care of itself. You know: don't regret the past, don't worry about the future, just be here now and all that.
But sometimes, focusing on the present is the obstacle. Take driving a car, for example. If you didn't look ahead to see where the road was going, you'd keep driving straight and crash at the next curve. When you're driving, you never actually pay attention to where you are; you're always paying attention to what's happening in the road ahead and you change course based on what you see in the future.
It's the same with running a business. These days I see a lot of leaders who remind me of me mountain biking down that chute. They look with fear at their current numbers or at the government's current reports, and then without meaning to, they squeeze the brakes. In some cases they're still laying people off or, at least, not hiring. They've drastically reduced training or stopped it altogether. Their employees are still worried about their jobs and they, the leaders themselves, aren't reassuring them because they're worried about their jobs too.
READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE AT:
http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org/bregman/2009/08/how-to-fly-over-recessionary-o.html
Peter Bregman writes a weekly column called How We Work at Harvard Business and is a regular contributor at CNN. He speaks, writes, and consults about how to lead and how to live. He is the CEO of Bregman Partners, Inc., a global management consulting firm, and advises CEOs and their leadership teams. You can sign up to be notified when he writes a new article. Bregman is the author of Point B: A Short Guide To Leading a Big Change and can be reached at www.peterbregman.com.
Showing posts with label Leadership. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Leadership. Show all posts
Monday, December 7, 2009
Monday, November 9, 2009
Four Reasons NOT to Conduct an Employee Survey
Four Reasons NOT to Conduct an Employee Survey
by by Heather Stagl of Enclaria
September 22, 2009
Employee surveys are useful tools for understanding the beliefs, attitudes and opinions of an organization as a whole. Surveys are commonly used in pursuit of change to discover and understand organizational culture, resistance, morale, and a host of other characteristics that can shine the light on opportunities for improvement.
However, not all surveys will improve the situation. The following are four warning signs that conducting a survey may do more harm than good.
1. The leaders don’t really want to know what people think.
The people who hold the top spots in an organization are usually out of the feedback loop. As they move up the ladder, they are increasingly unaware of the pulse of the organization. When the intent to conduct an employee survey is proposed, leaders who understand this phenomenon will jump at the chance to collect information that they have gradually been phased out of. These leaders will want more details about what will be asked, and might even propose other questions that they would like to ask.
On the flip side of the coin are leaders who think they already know, or worse, don’t really care what the employees think or how they feel. If you propose an employee survey and receive a resounding, “Sure, go ahead” without any curiosity or concerns, beware. They probably don’t really want to know what people think.
2. The leaders won’t believe the results.
Sometimes leaders will dismiss the results of the survey, even if it seems they wanted to know. I once conducted an employee satisfaction survey that I created in-house due to lack of funds for the project. Once I presented the results, the leaders wanted benchmarks to compare against to see if the results were “normal.” Of course, having created the survey in-house, there was no other data to compare them against.
Before conducting a survey, watch for signs that the leaders commonly deflect accountability by picking apart the validity of numbers in other settings. One way to combat this scenario ahead of time is to discuss the output that will be generated from the survey. Discuss hypothetical results with the leadership team to determine up front what else they will want to know, so you can build it into your analysis.
3. The leaders won’t do anything about it.
Even leaders who want to know and believe the results still may not do anything about it. If employees give their opinion and then nothing is done, the integrity of the leaders and you as the surveyor drops, and future surveys will not be taken as seriously.
When discussing hypothetical results, gauge the interest of leaders in taking action. For example, if the survey says that people don’t know the direction the company is going, are the leaders willing to share strategic information? If the answer is no, then don’t bother asking.
To combat the first three reasons not to conduct an employee survey, make sure leaders know the questions you are asking and what you are actually measuring with the questions. Discuss ahead of time what the implications and actions might be based on hypothetical responses you think they might have trouble absorbing.
4. You don’t want to say what you already know
The fourth reason not to conduct an employee survey, instead of being directed at the leadership team, is directed at the surveyor. Are you conducting the survey because you don’t know the answers, or are you conducting the survey because you don’t want to say what you already know? Is fear getting in the way of you speaking up and sharing the problems you see in the organization? Is the survey actually a cop-out?
If any of that rings true, here’s an idea for you: Include your point of view in the proposal for the survey. State your hypothesis – what you believe to be true – and say you would like to conduct a survey to test it. Share the implications and the action plan for improving the situation if you are right. Then offer the option to skip the survey if they agree – they just might. If they don’t agree with your hypothesis, then you will still conduct the survey. Not only will you get more involvement from people who disagree with you, it will also be more scientific and objective than if you were just using the to communicate for you.
Yes, surveys can be very useful tools to help direct a change initiative. That is, of course, if the leaders want to know what employees think, will believe the results, and will do something with the opportunities that are revealed.
by by Heather Stagl of Enclaria
September 22, 2009
Employee surveys are useful tools for understanding the beliefs, attitudes and opinions of an organization as a whole. Surveys are commonly used in pursuit of change to discover and understand organizational culture, resistance, morale, and a host of other characteristics that can shine the light on opportunities for improvement.
However, not all surveys will improve the situation. The following are four warning signs that conducting a survey may do more harm than good.
1. The leaders don’t really want to know what people think.
The people who hold the top spots in an organization are usually out of the feedback loop. As they move up the ladder, they are increasingly unaware of the pulse of the organization. When the intent to conduct an employee survey is proposed, leaders who understand this phenomenon will jump at the chance to collect information that they have gradually been phased out of. These leaders will want more details about what will be asked, and might even propose other questions that they would like to ask.
On the flip side of the coin are leaders who think they already know, or worse, don’t really care what the employees think or how they feel. If you propose an employee survey and receive a resounding, “Sure, go ahead” without any curiosity or concerns, beware. They probably don’t really want to know what people think.
2. The leaders won’t believe the results.
Sometimes leaders will dismiss the results of the survey, even if it seems they wanted to know. I once conducted an employee satisfaction survey that I created in-house due to lack of funds for the project. Once I presented the results, the leaders wanted benchmarks to compare against to see if the results were “normal.” Of course, having created the survey in-house, there was no other data to compare them against.
Before conducting a survey, watch for signs that the leaders commonly deflect accountability by picking apart the validity of numbers in other settings. One way to combat this scenario ahead of time is to discuss the output that will be generated from the survey. Discuss hypothetical results with the leadership team to determine up front what else they will want to know, so you can build it into your analysis.
3. The leaders won’t do anything about it.
Even leaders who want to know and believe the results still may not do anything about it. If employees give their opinion and then nothing is done, the integrity of the leaders and you as the surveyor drops, and future surveys will not be taken as seriously.
When discussing hypothetical results, gauge the interest of leaders in taking action. For example, if the survey says that people don’t know the direction the company is going, are the leaders willing to share strategic information? If the answer is no, then don’t bother asking.
To combat the first three reasons not to conduct an employee survey, make sure leaders know the questions you are asking and what you are actually measuring with the questions. Discuss ahead of time what the implications and actions might be based on hypothetical responses you think they might have trouble absorbing.
4. You don’t want to say what you already know
The fourth reason not to conduct an employee survey, instead of being directed at the leadership team, is directed at the surveyor. Are you conducting the survey because you don’t know the answers, or are you conducting the survey because you don’t want to say what you already know? Is fear getting in the way of you speaking up and sharing the problems you see in the organization? Is the survey actually a cop-out?
If any of that rings true, here’s an idea for you: Include your point of view in the proposal for the survey. State your hypothesis – what you believe to be true – and say you would like to conduct a survey to test it. Share the implications and the action plan for improving the situation if you are right. Then offer the option to skip the survey if they agree – they just might. If they don’t agree with your hypothesis, then you will still conduct the survey. Not only will you get more involvement from people who disagree with you, it will also be more scientific and objective than if you were just using the to communicate for you.
Yes, surveys can be very useful tools to help direct a change initiative. That is, of course, if the leaders want to know what employees think, will believe the results, and will do something with the opportunities that are revealed.
Friday, November 6, 2009
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/
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/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)