Increasing Employee Retention Through Employee Engagement

You've seen it happen many times. An organization that provides top wages and benefits loses a great employee to a competitor for no apparent reason. Of course, some employee turnover is to be expected, but if your company is truly engaging your employees, there is no good reason for the unexpected loss of quality staff members. Many companies already know that wages and benefits are important to employees, but compensation alone is not enough to keep the highly skilled, motivated and experienced workforce your business needs to excel.
Why is Employment Engagement so important?
An organization's capacity to manage employee engagement is closely related to its ability to achieve high performance levels and superior business results.
Engaged employees will stay with the company, be an advocate of the company and its products and services, and contribute to bottom line business success. Engaged employees also normally perform better and are more motivated. There is a significant link between employee engagement and profitability. Employee engagement is critical to any organization that seeks not only to retain valued employees, but also increase its level of performance.

Many organizational factors influence employee engagement and retention such as:

• A culture of respect where outstanding work is valued

• Availability of constructive feedback and mentoring

• Opportunity for advancement and professional development

• Fair and appropriate reward, recognition and incentive systems

• Availability of effective leadership

• Clear job expectations

• Adequate tools to complete work responsibilities

• High levels of motivation

Read complete article. Increasing Employee Retention Through Employee Engagement

http://theengagementfactor.wordpress.com/2010/04/19/tim-wrightman-and-engagement/

Tim Wrightman, a former All-American UCLA football player, tells a story about how, as a rookie lineman in the National Football League, he was up against the legendary pass rusher Lawrence Taylor. Taylor was not only physically powerful and uncommonly quick but a master at verbal intimidation.

Looking young Tim in the eye, he said, “Sonny, get ready. I’m going to the left and there’s nothing you can do about it.”

Wrightman coolly responded, “Sir, is that your left or mine?”

The question froze Taylor long enough to allow Wrightman to throw a perfect block on him.

What is amazing about this story is it’s illustration that anyone –smaller, less innate ability, less experience–can outperform even the best if they put their mind to it.  We have choices we are able to make each day.  We choose how we will react.

Will we freeze?  Will we become paralyzed by our thoughts and fears? Or

Will we keep our cool?  Will we think strategically?

Will we let fear, intimidation, and stress be our jailor or counselor today?

I know what Tim Wrightman chose on that day.  What about you?  Engage yourself and outperform those around you.

http://theengagementfactor.wordpress.com/2010/04/19/tim-wrightman-and-engagement/

http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/mar2010/ca20100316_385201.htm

Five Destructive Company HR Policies

Theft-of-time, no-references, and certain other HR rules take the "human" out of "human resources" and drive talent to your competitors

Thinking about the problems facing the business, a CEO is likely to pinpoint such bogeymen as competitive pressures and labor costs. The organization's internal policies aren't likely to make the list of things that keep a leader up at night. Maybe they should. Most organizations of more than a few hundred people are burdened by unfortunate and misguided policies that serve to slow operations and drive away talented employees.

Overwritten or heavy-handed policy manuals hurt your business in three ways. First, they take your employees out of the realm known to sports psychologists as The Zone—the most productive mental place to be. It's the arena where staffers can push your agenda in a fully engaged, minimally distracted way. Bad policies force an employee to stop and look up a rule or consult a manager, slowing down the action. Second, policies are expensive to disseminate and costly to administer. Third and most destructive, policies speak loudly about CEOs' trust in themselves and their management teams. Where trust abounds, policies are few. In organizations where trust exists, leaders have confidence in themselves to hire and manage team members without minute-to-minute supervision. In fear-filled environments, policies rule the day.

Here's our list of the five most destructive human resources policies we've come across. If several of these protocols are in place in your company, the sucking sound you hear may be your profits gushing down the drain, as smart and capable employees flee your shop for more adult environments.

1. Sorry, We Can't Accommodate Your Life

A sure sign of a second-rate organization is a time-off policy oblivious to a normal person's entanglements and obligations. One young friend of mine began a job with a multinational bank, only to be told on orientation day: "I'm sorry, we can't accommodate the two hours of time off you need for a court date three weeks from now. You'll have earned enough time off to take that two-hour break in a few months." She walked out halfway through the day. Employers who can't flex in small ways to accommodate carbon-based life forms don't deserve their talents.

Why this unaccommodating policy reeks: It broadcasts to employees that "your personal life has no value to us; invest your mental and emotional energy in us accordingly."

2. We'll Transfer You When We Feel Like It

It's reasonable to expect a new employee to stay in his or her job for a year, but to put your managers forever in charge of your employees' career progress is a very bad idea. Smart people who don't love their assignments can leave your company and join your competitors, and if you make it too hard for them to apply for an internal opening, that's what they'll do. Don't make managers the decisionmakers on their employees' transfer requests. Let hiring managers in other groups interview and hire (or not) your current team members the same way they consider outside applicants.

Why a manager-driven transfer policy is the pits: It lets employees know that if they can't trust their boss to look out for their interests when an appealing job in the company is available, their best bet is to bail on the organization entirely.

3. Sorry, We Don't Give References

It's stunning and horrifying to realize, if you haven't heard it before, that many employers do not allow their managers to give references for people who have worked on their teams in the past. The boneheaded logic here is that managers might say something unfortunate, subjecting the employer to defamation charges. Withholding positive references for people who served your interests is unethical and shameful. Put your managers back in the reference-giving game if you want talented people to invest brain cells in your success

Why the no-references policy makes our list: It says that "our concern over the unlikely prospect of a defamation charge—brought on, if one should happen, by our ineffectiveness at training managers—is more than ample justification for us to prevent you from getting the good reference that your excellent work at our company should have earned you."

4. Bereavement Leave Police

The phone rings with awful news: A family member has died. At this low point, your employees call their managers to report that they'll have to miss a few days of work. Here's when they learn that your company doesn't trust them to take a few days off with pay. They are told they've got to bring documentation from the funeral home to prove that their loved one has died. Could anything be tackier, more insulting, and less professional? Nearly every day I get queries from HR people who've been charged with writing and installing these bereavement leave policies. If you can't trust your employees for two days off during a family crisis, why are they are on your payroll at all?

Why this policy stinks: It's the ultimate in bad-faith, bad-taste management, an enormous insult to your trusted employees and the capable managers who hired them.

5. Theft-of-Time Policies

When HR people call or write me asking about theft-of-time policies, I feel like a character in a science fiction novel. Theft-of-time policies are the ones that seek to ding (or terminate) employees for checking eBay (EBAY), updating their blogs or Facebook profiles, or otherwise doing nonwork stuff during the workday. Problem is, there is no theft of time for salaried employees. We don't pay for their time. We pay for their hard work and their good ideas. In my experience, the people you want on your team (and why would you keep any other kind around?) can't stop thinking about work, even when they want to. So why would you care whether they get their work done in 40 hours a week, or 55, or 22.5, and whether every minute at the office is spent "productively?" When we implement policies that bust people for "stealing time," we're making it clear that we really don't know how to manage or evaluate the work our people do. We only know how to count the hours their body is in the seat. That's a management failing—and a time-obsessed culture will drive your best people right into your competitors' arms.

Why theft-of-time policies fail: They make it clear that while your company may believe in talent, its true love is old-fashioned face time. Big Brotherish software programs that track minutes spent on outside Web sites are equally ridiculous. If your best call-center rep has a Solitaire addiction that gets her through the day, what do you care?

http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/mar2010/ca20100316_385201.htm

http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-he-your-money-20100419-25,0,3541245.story

Does your company pay your gym membership? Better start using it.
Hundreds of thousands of Americans who get their health insurance through their employers have gotten used to company perks such as reduced-cost gym memberships, free weight-loss or smoking-cessation programs, or getting cash back for filling out health-assessment profiles.
But a new survey reports that a small but growing group of firms will be imposing tougher requirements to get the incentives, such as actually losing weight or quitting smoking.
"As companies struggle to deal with low levels of employee engagement and face limited budgets for financial incentives, employers are demonstrating a growing interest in requiring results from those health engagement activities before handing over financial incentives," says report coauthor Ted Nussbaum, a senior consultant for the benefits consulting firm Towers Watson, which wrote the report along with the National Business Group on Health, an organization that advocates for lower health costs for large businesses.
The report, which was released in March, surveyed 507 companies with at least 1,000 employees each. It found that 37% of the companies offer incentives only to beneficiaries who meet the company's requirements and an additional 23% plan to do so in 2011. Each company has its own requirements, which could include, among other things, employees acknowledging whether or not they smoke, completing a health risk appraisal, having an adult health exam, maintaining body mass index and/or blood pressure and/or cholesterol levels within target levels, and completion of health coaching or a disease management program for a chronic condition such as asthma or diabetes.
Viverae, a health benefits firm based in Dallas that creates wellness programs for employers, says 90% of its 55 corporate clients now require results from employees, such as weight loss or a health exam, to get or keep incentives such as gym memberships or perks such as gift cards to coffee shops.
Nussbaum of Towers Watson says that rising healthcare costs are the driving factor behind the decision to want to see results in exchange for financial health incentives.
A plus side to all this is that some firms have begun extending valuable incentives far beyond gym memberships — albeit, again, with strings attached. Vita-Mix, which makes blenders and employs about 240 people in Cleveland, lowers the health insurance deductible for employees who meet certain health criteria, including being nonsmokers and falling within target ranges on BMI, weight and cholesterol levels. (Ed Paul of San Diego, a sales manager for the firm, met all four criteria and saw his deductible lowered by $2,000, or $500 for each measure met.)
Some attorneys say there could be legal challenges to attaching strings to perks, but many experts disagree. Life insurers have long set higher rates for smokers than for nonsmokers, Nussbaum notes. And Michael Nadeau, chief executive of Viverae, says that some firms take into account employees who are medically unable to reach certain benchmarks, such as people who are disabled and therefore unable to exercise.
Dr. David Katz, director of the Prevention Research Center at Yale University, suggests that consumers view this emerging trend by employers as an opportunity rather than a call for legal action. "People paying fully out of pocket for their health insurance also should be stopping smoking or losing weight, if necessary, just to improve their health and live a longer and healthier life. If the firm you work for is going to reward you beyond the better breathing, circulatory system and physical flexibility that come with changing your lifestyle, that's icing on the cake."
Most companies renew health insurance coverage for their workers each January and announce changes, such as new rules on health perks, between October and December. (Some do so even sooner.) Because placing conditions on perks looks to be a growing trend, Nussbaum suggests carefully checking the information packets that come with health insurance sign-up sheets.
In the meantime, Katz says, for the good of your health if nothing else, now may not be a bad time to start making use of the perks you now get without strings attached.

http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-he-your-money-20100419-25,0,3541245.story

A road map for employee engagement

Enhance leadership. Business journals are brim full with articles about leadership. Ignore them – they are all far too complicated. Effective organisational leadership is simple:

1. have a vision of where you want to get to,
2. clearly and persuasively communicate that vision to employees, and
3. be consistent in your behaviours as strive to achieve that vision. Do this and your employees will follow. Fail and you will be out there on you own.

Involve your people and value their input. Business journals are also brim full with articles about change. Ignore these too because they typically start from the Machiavellian premise that "people hate change".

This is nonsense of course. People LOVE change – in fact they can hardly get enough of it.

Through the 1990s the UK DIY retail multiples experienced growth of over 185 per cent and in 2004 the sector was estimated to be enjoying a turnover of just over £7.3 billion. People hate change? And when the paint brushes and electric drills are put away for the night, these same people are tuning-in to makeover shows and gardening programmes.

People hate change? No, if people are involved in change (Do It YOURSELF) and their input to the process is valued they will readily engage with it.

Look after your reputation. If the world believes that your organisation is a poor "corporate citizen" they will tell your people. If your employees believe what they hear they will increasingly distance themselves from the business. And if they don't, they will get increasingly frustrated if they see that you are doing nothing to correct these misperceptions.

Either way, organisations that proactively manage their reputations will also enjoy higher levels of employee engagement.

Could it be any simpler?

Well, actually, it could – because a common theme runs through all three stages of the process: COMMUNICATION.

And a major study by Watson Wyatt – Connecting Organisational Communication to Financial Performance – has given us the ultimate end-to-end measurement: from key driver of employee engagement (communication) to shareholder return on activity.

The research found that "a significant improvement in communication effectiveness is associated with a 29.5 per cent increase in market value" and that "companies with the highest levels of effective communication experienced a 26 per cent total return to shareholders from 1998 to 2002, compared to a -15 per cent return experienced by firms that communicate least effectively".

Effective communications create engaged employees create loyal customers who in turn create bigger profits

Furthermore, they found that organisations that communicate effectively were "more likely to report employee turnover rates below or significantly below those of their industry peers."

In short: Effective Communications create Engaged Employees create Loyal Customers who in turn create Bigger Profits.

But we need to be clear about what is being said here. The report highlights the return on effective COMMUNICATION, not information. And communication is not just about telling people what you want them to do or are about to do to them – it is about genuine two-way dialogue with both employees and the outside world. And although this is simple it is not easy.

In fact it is going to be REALLY DIFFICULT to implement because there are four substantial barriers in place in most organisations:

Managers do not see communication as part of their day job. Most managers focus on "hard" measures, delivering the required outcomes on time, on budget, and on target. The "soft" stuff is all too often done on the side of the desk, as an extra-curricular activity, or abdicated to Personnel.

Giving people the information and instructions they need to achieve these outcomes is clearly part of the manager's role. Communication, however, is still seen as "soft" stuff, even though the reality is that it is the hardest driver of organisational performance managers have at their disposal.

Managers have not developed their communication skills. Human beings are, bar none, the most effective natural communicators in the animal kingdom. A change in inflection, the tilt of the head and a knowing look can convey the most subtle nuances and utterly transform the meaning of a sentence.

But this is NATURAL one-on-one or one-on-few communication using techniques our species has evolved over millennia and which we have practiced as individuals throughout our lives. ORGANISATIONAL communication operates on a totally different scale and uses thoroughly unnatural tools.

Mobile phones, email, PowerPoint, teleconferencing – all are immensely powerful tools for communicating with a large, widely spread audience but all have been blamed for our failure to communicate effectively.

Why? Because our natural communication skills are so good we take it for granted that we will be competent organisational communicators too.

We are therefore making the assumption that we can use unnatural tools to engage with an unnaturally large audience without acquiring any additional skills. Naturally we are wrong!

Communication channels are absent, inappropriate, or over-subscribed. Decades of failing to take organisational communications seriously means that in many businesses appropriate channels have not been created or effectively maintained.

As the head of internal communications for a major blue-chip corporation recently commented "a decade ago the 'internal communications department' was an ex-journalist who churned out the employee newsletter once a month".

Now things have moved on considerably, but even within progressive organisations there is still a legacy of poor channel infrastructure, usage and management to be tackled.

Communication around corporate citizenship is disjointed. Like internal communications, "community communications" is a new and developing discipline which is working through a host of legacy issues. Foremost amongst these are the need for organisations to enter into a true dialogue with the communities within which they operate and for all of the positive interactions within these communities to be "joined up".

Again much progress has been made, but although Corporate and Social Responsibility (CSR) teams have done great work in gathering and promoting a wide range of issues, few companies could claim a truly strategic approach. And even fewer could claim that CSR is owned by each and every employee, which is where it needs to be if employees are to feel personal ownership and pride in the organisation they work for.

A manifesto for outstanding organisational performance
It is clear, therefore, that employee engagement is a major driver of organisational performance. And effective organisational communication is a significant driver of employee engagement.

If, as I do, you find the argument persuasive and you want to begin the process of breaking down the barriers to successfully harnessing the Service-Profit Chain for your organisation, I believe that you should sign-up to the following four-point manifesto:

1. Education: Every manager in your organisation must understand how effective communication drives performance
2. Development: Every manager in your organisation must recognise the difference between natural and organisational communication and commit to developing the required skills
3. Infrastructure: The organisation must invest in the development and maintenance of appropriate channels of communication
4. Community: The organisation must actively mange its reputation as corporate citizen and positively engage employees and the wider community alike

This is a simple plan, but it is not a sequential plan – all four areas can, and should, be tackled simultaneously.

This means that it will not necessarily be an easy plan to deliver, but business leaders MUST deliver because with almost nine out of 10 employees currently being either "disengaged" or just "moderately engaged" at work, the opportunity to drive outstanding organisational performance is simply too enormous to ignore.

A road map for employee engagement

Business Not as Usual at Wage and Hour Division: No More Opinion Letters

Since President Barack Obama’s inauguration approximately 14 months ago, the Wage and Hour Division of the U.S. Department of Labor had seemed to be asleep: it had issued not a single opinion letter related to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
At the end of March 2010, the sleeping giant finally awoke, and employers are unlikely to be pleased with the result. The division announced that it would be departing from its longstanding practice of publishing opinion letters to provide fact-specific guidance to employers and employees.
In the future, requests for opinion letters will be responded to by providing references to statutes, regulations, interpretations and cases that are relevant to the specific request, but without an analysis of the specific facts presented.
The division also withdrew a September 2006 opinion letter that had been favorable to finance industry employers regarding the exempt status of mortgage loan officers and similar positions.

‘Administrative Interpretations’ Replace Opinion Letters

The division has entirely changed the format of its written guidance. Since the FLSA was enacted in 1938, the division has issued opinion letters written in response to specific requests from employers, employees, unions and attorneys. At the end of March, the division announced that it is abandoning this type of opinion letter in favor of “administrator’s interpretations.”

Where opinion letters responded to specific situations, the administrator’s interpretations will “set forth a general interpretation of law and regulations, applicable across-the-board to all those affected by the provision in issue.”
Where opinion letters were intended to respond to each request from a member of the regulated community, the “administrator’s interpretations” will be written only when the administrator believes that an interpretation is warranted; that is, when she [deputy administrator Nancy J. Leppink] determines that “further clarity regarding the proper interpretation of a statutory or regulatory issue is appropriate.”
Judging from the first issue that the administrator determined needed clarity, we are concerned that these interpretations will be issued primarily when the administrator determines that the division should take a more “employee-friendly” position than it has in the past.

Unanswered Questions

Many questions remain unanswered about “administrator’s interpretations.” Will the division take another 14 months before we see a second administrator’s interpretation, or has the floodgate been opened? Will the courts give more deference to these administrator’s interpretations than they gave to opinion letters, or less? Will we see more administrator’s interpretations that withdraw prior opinion letters on which employers had relied? What will become of an employer’s ability to plead and prove the statutory affirmative defense to liability under the FLSA based on good faith reliance on the written rulings and interpretations of the division?
We will have to wait and see, but this change will probably benefit employers rarely, if ever, if this first administrator’s interpretation is an accurate indicator.

James M. Coleman and Maureen R. Knight are attorneys in the Fairfax, Va., office of Constangy, Brooks & Smith LLP, which has counseled employers on labor and employment law matters, exclusively, since 1946. Republished with permission. © 2010 Constangy, Brooks & Smith LLP. All rights reserved.

Business Not as Usual at Wage and Hour Division: No More Opinion Letters

Employee engagement: the what, why and how

In the past, it has been labeled the biggest commercial untruth since "the cheque is in the post". Today, however, there is clear evidence that business leaders are not simply saying that "our people are our most important asset" – they are actually beginning to mean it too.

Why the change of heart? Because the body of evidence that employee engagement is a key driver of organizational performance grows almost daily. But with recent research by Towers Perrin highlighting the fact that employee disengagement is a global epidemic, organizations still clearly have much work to do to ensure that their workforce can be properly inspired and motivated.

The Service-Profit Chain
For many, the employee engagement story begins in 1994 when James Heskett and his colleagues at the Harvard Business School published their seminal paper Putting the Service-Profit Chain to Work.

The Service-Profit Chain model they had created could hardly be more intuitive: Employee Satisfaction drives Employee Retention drives Employee Productivity drives Service Value drives Customer Satisfaction drives Customer Loyalty drives Profitability and Growth.

Engaged employees create loyal customers who in turn create bigger profits

In short: Engaged Employees create Loyal Customers who in turn create Bigger Profits.

For a few, including Richard Branson at Virgin, this simple premise was the basis upon which they had already begun to build their businesses. As Branson says:

"We embarked on consciously building Virgin into a brand which stood for quality, value, fun and a sense of challenge. We also developed these ideas in the belief that our first priority should be the people who work for the companies, then the customers, then the shareholders. Because if the staff are motivated then the customers will be happy, and the shareholders will then benefit through the company's success."

Others, however, would need a more rigorous analysis if they were going to commit their organizations to this somewhat radical vision of "the shareholders come last". Yet the Service-Profit Chain model's greatest problem was that it was only supported by data collected by different companies at different points on the chain.

For example, in the banking sector it was known that a 5 per cent increase in Customer Loyalty could produce Profitability increases from 25 per cent to 85 per cent. Meanwhile, an insurance company had shown that when an experienced employee left the business Customer Satisfaction levels dropped from 75 per cent to 55 per cent.

In fact only quick-service restaurant chain Taco Bell had begun to do anything like an end-to-end analysis of the chain, observing that the 20 per cent of stores with the highest Employee Retention rates enjoyed double the sales and 55 per cent higher profits than the 20 per cent of stores with the lowest Employee Retention rates.

As a result, although the Service-Profit Chain model seemed logical and sensible, the potential return on investment was unknown. This made it difficult for business leaders to assess how much effort they should be making to embed it within their organizations.

Welcome to the 21st century
What a difference a decade makes, because today's business leaders have end-to-end Service-Profit Chain data coming at them from all angles!

Sirota Consulting studied 28 multinational companies though 2004 and found that the share prices of organizations with highly engaged employees rose by an average of 16 per cent compared with an industry average of 6 per cent.

Meanwhile, an ISR study published in August 2005 showed that companies with low levels of employee engagement saw net profit fall by 1.38 per cent and operating margin fall by 2.01 per cent over a 36-month period. In companies with above average levels of employee engagement profits rose by 2.06 per cent and operating margin rose by 3.74 per cent over 36-months.

And it gets even better, because the research has now been completed which identifies the key drivers of employee engagement. In other words, a "road map" for achieving outstanding organizational performance through the Service-Profit Chain has been developed and is ready for immediate implementation.

Employee engagement: the what, why and how

SmartBlog on Workforce » Survey scores take a dip? Great!

I’m so heartened to see evidence that employers are still interested in fostering engagement in their workplace cultures — even in these times when “they should just be glad they have a job” is a management model that actually feels a little legitimate. Well-written engagement surveys are a very good thing.  Scores that report all raves? Okay. Scores that are a little bit good and a little bit bad — even a lot bad? Fabulous!

But how can that be? Isn’t the name of the game to have great engagement scores? Actually, no.  The name of the game is to have a great engagement culture. So what kind of scores should you look for if positive scores aren’t the goal?  Answer: Accurate ones. Well, that’s self-evident, but perhaps not for the reasons you might think.

Here is why bad scores are good news:

• Bad scores reveal the areas that need to be fixed. If you use engagement surveys for their best purpose, which is to discover the cultural aspects where improvement would be welcome, nothing is more useful than a rotten score.  It’s too bad if that negative score is directly assigned to a manager. But this is your opportunity to save perhaps an otherwise extremely valuable employee — or even an entire department.

• Bad scores demonstrate that your people still take the survey process seriously. Filling out these surveys is a huge leap of faith for your people — even if you can give them a 100% guarantee that their answers are confidential. There is still that risk of a security slip, and then a pink slip.  When your people step forward and report negative experiences, that act alone shows you how deeply committed they are to the long-term success of your company and its culture.

• Bad scores are an indication that you are asking the right questions. Assuming that you are custom-writing your surveys, the negative responses to specific questions give you the specific data you need to improve your culture.

I know that it’s hard to take risks with your questions, especially if you have been experiencing year after year of positive scores.  But especially if you have been enjoying year after year of positive scores, now is definitely the time to ask the scary questions that could shake up some of your leaders.

Should that be the case, don’t dismay. Negative scores show that your people still care passionately about your business. Which is actually the best possible outcome you can hope for.

SmartBlog on Workforce » Survey scores take a dip? Great!

Facebook | Employee Engagement: A Roadmap for Creating Profits, Optimizing Performance: Building New Connections in a Transition

Departures, a film by Yojiro Takita that won an Oscar for best foreign language film, is not only a touching film about life and love, but also about employee engagement.

Synopsis(from the movie website)

Academy Award® Winner for Best Foreign Language Film of the year, “Departures” is a delightful and sensitive journey into the heartland of Japan and an astonishingly beautiful look at a sacred part of Japan’s cultural heritage.

A premiere symphony orchestra in Tokyo disbands, leaving Daigo Kobayashi (Masahiro Motoki) suddenly unemployed. Suffering from an innate sense that he is a mediocre musician, he faces up to the fact that not everyone who has devoted their life to music can become a top artist. With wife Mika (Ryoko Hirosue) in tow, he moves back to his home town in the northeastern prefecture of Yamagata. They move into the crumbling remains of his mother’s house, which doubled as the local pub.

Spotting a Help Wanted ad featuring the word “departures,” he is excited about the prospect of trying a new career in the travel industry. He arrives for the interview, curiously eyeing the coffins lining the back wall of the office. The company owner, Sasaki( Tsutomu Yamazaki), hires him on the spot, with only a cursory glance at his resume. Daigo finally ventures to ask what is involved, exactly, and is stunned to learn what he has gotten himself into: the ceremonial “encoffination” of corpses prior to cremation. Sasaki urges him to take the job, proffering large amounts of cash. He’s getting older, and needs someone to carry on the tradition.

In desperate straits, Daigo over comes his initial trepidation and begins to travel around Hiranowith Sasaki. Sasakiis comically matter-of-fact but firm in his directives and the contention that they are providing an important service to their community. Some cases are markedly traditional, featuring beatific family members in time-honored transition. Others highlight family dramas fraught with inevitable collisions, eased into unexpected conclusion. True to Sasaki’s expectations, Daigo develops a deep respect for life in all its variations, and a profound empathy for people trying to make peace with the finality of death.

Employee Engagement

As you watch this film you will notice a person who loses something important to him; a man that is in transition. He is challenged by his new situation and surroundings, but he develops connections along the way. Connections are a significant part of employee engagement. On first glance we may not like or even be passionate regarding our work, but finding meaning and connections in our efforts can change that perspective.

Facebook | Employee Engagement: A Roadmap for Creating Profits, Optimizing Performance: Building New Connections in a Transition

http://biz.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/4/3/business/5943889&sec=business

What it takes to be a top employer

TO be successful and be regarded as among the best employers, a company among other things should be able to strike a balance between business goals and employee needs.

Although earnings and cashflow are vital and a reflection of an organisation’s strength, human resource is equally important in determining its path to success. An organisation will cease to exist if it has no people.

"A work environment that encourages suggestions, feedback and openness, without fear of reprisal, is vital for employee success" RAHMAT HASHIM ROSLAN

Business and political leaders are increasingly aware that having good people who are skilled and motivated can make a significant difference to an organisation.

Large corporations that started as small and medium enterprises (SMEs), for example, in Japan, Europe and the US, have made it big because they had been successful in strategising their business operations and workforce for optimum results.

From various findings and, according to a consultancy’s website, some of the main criteria in determining whether a company is a top employer, is its ability to engage with employees, the capability to streamline its workforce in line with its business objectives, and the effectiveness of sustaining employee engagement in the long run.

Engagement will enable positive interaction between employers and employees, and minimise stumbling blocks popping up in the companies’ relations with potential employees and customers.

Sharing his views on the subject, Standard Chartered Bank Malaysia Bhd country head human resources for Malaysia, Brunei and Mekong region, Rahmat Hashim Roslan, says the ability to earn the best employer label is not solely based on the virtue of an organisation but also its workforce.

Human needs and desires in a workplace are different individually and, as such, the organisation that wants to be known as a good employer must be able to strike the right balance in catering to its needs and those of its workforce, he adds.

A balance that works

Identifying an ideal balance of needs is crucial, but equally important is how to then make it work.

“To see whether a company is considered to be a good employer or the opposite, much depends on how it delivers this balance of needs. A best employer is one that is able to identify and deliver in the most effective approach and apply the most accurate balance of needs for its organisation and its workforce,” says Rahmat.

“A ‘best employer’ has a holistic approach to building a work environment in which employees are fully engaged and committed to business success.”

An organisation that strives to be a best employer must be committed in determining the optimal balance of needs between itself and its workforce, as well as in delivering that effectively. Such commitment is necessary to ensure that both parties achieve progress.

Rahmat points out that an organisation that strives to become a good and efficient employer must at the same time understand that the most important element that drive commitment is its workforce.

“The workforce comprises human beings. Every human need and desire in a workplace is different individually, but there are some similarities when it comes to engagement and career development. Everybody wants a workplace that promotes a working environment that is conducive and has a culture that is comfortable to work in.

“A work environment that encourages suggestions, feedback and openness, without fear of reprisal, is vital for employee success,” he notes.

An organisation, he adds, should always ensure that the employees’ values and beliefs are aligned with the company’s culture and values so as to achieve a common goal for future success.

Developing talent

Apart from this, a company must be committed in the area of engagement with and career development of its staff.

To this end, he says, it must identify high-potential employees as well as nurture and groom them to help attain leadership skills and master the relevant technical skills, and eventually take them to the next level.

As talent development is crucial for a company to move forward and become more competitive with the right skill sets, many organisations are now investing in training and development.

The Government and the private sector in the country are more serious now compared with a decade ago and are increasing their investments in training and development to ensure there is sufficient skills, know-how and expertise to be competitive in the global arena.

Elaborating on the training programmes, Rahmat adds that there must be commitment and investment in well-established training and development channels and programmes. This, he says, include formal training (on leadership and technical skills, culture and values), job rotations, assignments, mentoring/coaching, self-learning (company library and online resources).

Each employee must have a clear set of objectives that are aligned to the organisation’s goals, with regular feedback on performance, he notes.

Besides this, organisations should provide competitive compensation and benefits, including long-term financial reward to employees as well as recognise high achievers with good rewards, while enforcing strict consequence management for low performers.

Making things clear

Communication is also essential in achieving such commitment from the workforce, Rahmat adds. “Leaders must be visible and accessible, and provide clear direction about the organisation’s business strategy, goals and progress.

“Communication should be both top-down and bottom-up and through various channels. Top-down communication channels include town-hall meetings, employee meetings, emails from CEOs, newsletters, memos, and via Intranet (top-down). Bottom-up communication channels can be via regular employee opinion surveys and focus groups.”

In a nutshell, he says, the steps or initiative which must be undertaken by a business concern to be labelled as a best employer are first, to identify the organisation and workforce needs accordingly. Second, find the right or most accurate balance that wll not put either party at a disadvantage.

Third, Rahmat says, communication and approach in the delivery of the needs to the workforce must be impactful with clear elaboration of objectives and how these can fuel the organisation’s progress.

Lastly, there must be continuous or regular communication with the workforce to ensure the employees recognise that they are an important part of the whole effort as well as important contributors in achieving the organisation’s needs.

Commenting on the challenges facing businesses in becoming the best employers, he says: “The challenge is always in the area of communication and the approach in the delivery of the workforce’s needs.

“In most large organisation, the managers are empowered to handle the communication and delivery. But there will be some managers who are not equipped with the right skills to handle such tasks. This will result in distorted messages and uncertainties among the workforce.”

These will indirectly impact the organisation’s productivity or performance in achieving these needs.”

Rahmat says another challenge is to balance expectations and needs of the different generations in the workforce.

http://biz.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/4/3/business/5943889&sec=business

http://www.camagazine.com/generations/default.aspx

Different generations, same objectives

Boomers, Gen X and Gen Y all want the same things at work, a new study says.

What do the generations in the workplace really think of each other? Increasingly, organizational leaders are becoming concerned with this very question. The age structure of today’s workforce is changing, with baby boomers (aged 45-64) remaining in the workforce longer, Gen Xers (aged 30-44) taking on new roles and responsibilities, and Gen Yers (aged 15-29) entering the workforce in rising numbers. At the same time, the move toward “flatter” organizational structures and more intense team-based collaboration has placed workers of all generations in closer interaction. If negative stereotypes prevail, the prospects for productivity-damaging conflicts will increase.

The implications of intergenerational workplace conflict prompted The Conference Board of Canada to investigate the similarities and differences among Baby Boom, Generation X, and Generation Y workers. Along with an extensive review of other studies, the board conducted its own survey of more than 900 Canadian workers (including at least 300 from each of the three generations). Respondents were asked what they thought about the workplace characteristics of their own and other generations (e.g., adaptability, manageability and loyalty), as well as the respondents’ own personal characteristics (e.g., personality, communication preferences and social interaction). 

The research found some differences in how the generations see one another, many of which mirror popular—and often negative—generational stereotypes. Yet workers from all three generations share many preferences in the workplace. In short, many of the supposed differences between the boomer, Gen X, and Gen Y workers are based on perception, not reality. There is no one “type of worker” that best describes any particular generation.

Generational differences: perceptions of other generations
According to the Conference Board’s survey findings, there are several differences in the way generations regard themselves and each other.

Adaptability. All generations say their generation is adaptable, but Gen Xers and Gen Yers regard boomers as less adaptable than younger generations of workers. In particular, Gen Xers and Gen Yers think boomers are less comfortable with technology, less open to change and less accepting of diversity.

Manageability. All generations feel that Gen Yers are more difficult to manage than other generations. Boomers and Gen Xers believe Gen Yers require more close supervision, are less likely to follow procedures and are less results-driven than other generations.

Teamwork. All generations see themselves as good team players, although there are some differences in how each generation perceives the work ethics of the others. While Gen Xers and Gen Yers view their generation as hard-working, some boomers and Gen Xers regard Gen Yers as less willing to give maximum effort.

Balance. All generations say they seek work-life balance. Gen Xers and Gen Yers feel they are slightly more likely to seek work-life balance than their boomer colleagues. As well, each generation perceives Gen Xers and Gen Yers to have a greater preference for informality in the workplace than boomers.

Loyalty. All generations see themselves as somewhat trusting in an organization, but boomers regard younger generations as less trusting than they are. Gen Xers and Gen Yers agree their generations are less likely to remain with an organization, but this tendency may be strongly influenced by their current, earlier career stage.

Generational stereotypes: real consequenses
If left unchecked, such perceptions can lead to intergenerational misunderstandings, frustration and conflicts. Perceptions of boomers as inflexible, technological illiterates may leave them out of the loop in discussions of technological issues among younger workers. Similarly, the presumed lack of commitment and loyalty on the part of Gen Xers and Gen Yers can complicate the challenge of maintaining organizational cohesion and effectiveness.

Generational similarities: shared workplace preferences
In spite of the stereotypes, respondents from each generation share similar patterns of workplace preferences. The strongest similarities are in the areas of personality traits, workplace motivations and learning styles. Workers from all three generations are made up of roughly equal numbers of introverts and extroverts, those motivated by work and those motivated by personal goals, and those who like “hands-on” experiences versus those who prefer written instructions.

Individuals from the three generations prefer to communicate and interact in similar ways, although there are a key few differences. Boomers, for example, are less likely to find technology an acceptable medium of communication for dealing with difficult issues or workplace conflicts. They are also somewhat less likely to be interested in after-hours socializing with their workplace colleagues.

In short, workers from all three generations desire many of the same things in the workplace, including respect, flexibility, fairness and the opportunity to do interesting and rewarding work.

Implications: manage by principle, not by stereotype
Maximizing the productivity and performance of a multigenerational workforce involves much more than knowing the profiles of the “typical” boomer, Gen Xer, and Gen Yer (e.g., age, presumed characteristics and preferences).

Today’s workforce is increasingly diverse­—not only demographically, but also in lifestyles, cultures and circumstances. It should come as little surprise to employers that many workers do not “fit” within neat stereotypes based on large generational categories.

Generational perceptions, even if inaccurate, do influence organizational performance. Perceptions are an important dimension of workplace culture. How different groups of workers within an organization see one another—and themselves—can have a major impact on organizational effectiveness. Positive perceptions can promote workplace cohesion, teamwork, innovation and performance, just as negative views can hinder all of the above.

Employers, therefore, need to understand and manage the differences in perceptions across the generations, while also accommodating the cross-generational similarities in workplace preferences. Employers can begin by fostering understanding and inclusion among the generations, and by providing flexible working arrangements that fit the differing needs of individual workers. By applying these principles of organizational effectiveness, employers can derive the full benefits of a multigenerational workforce.

http://www.camagazine.com/generations/default.aspx

http://www.cambridgenetwork.co.uk/news/article/default.aspx?objid=69046

How to retain and motivate employees in post-recession.

Cambridge-based consultant launches special offer package to help local companies retain and motivate key talent.

As local economic conditions start to improve, Cambridge businesses are beginning to switch their focus from survival to revival. And chances are, their staff will too. As employees begin to consider their career options, how can companies retain their key employees and enhance their motivation and productivity?

The answer lies in employee engagement: the way companies talk and listen to their people. Local consultant Sophie Jefferies specializes in helping organizations of all shapes and sizes do exactly that with a special offer package launched this week.

A report commissioned by the Dept for Business, published last year, reveals that
• Engaged employees are 87% less likely to leave their organization
• Engaged employees generate more revenue
• Higher levels of engagement relate to higher levels of innovation
• Engaged employees even take less sick leave

Most Cambridge businesses start small. At the outset much of their internal communication and engagement happens around the coffee machine. It is easy to stay in tune and keep everyone up to date.

As companies grow, particularly once they exceed a headcount of 30, those informal networks are just as important, but they become more complex and harder to tap into. Leaders need to work harder to engage and inform, particularly if employees feel their loyalty has been stretched by pay freezes or other economy measures during the downturn.

The good news is that there are lots of simple, cost-effective employee engagement solutions for organizations of all shapes and sizes, from simple management practices through to social media solutions. Whereas internal communications used to only be affordable for very large organizations, it’s now an essential for all. And this is particularly true for Cambridge businesses, where human capital is often one of their greatest assets.

The only problem lies in choosing and using the right engagement channels from the rather confusing array of options available.

http://www.cambridgenetwork.co.uk/news/article/default.aspx?objid=69046