Engagement and Leadership: Follow Up to HR Happy Hour

The discussion on the HR Happy Hour hosted by Steve Boese focused on employee engagement and leadership. Broadcasting from the HR Florida conference, the show featured Cathy Martin and China Gorman. The discussion focused on the question of how to get employees engaged in their jobs and in the strategic direction of the company. One answer was that, while companies have traditionally focused on tactical moves to get employees engaged, what they really need to do is win the hearts of their employees. To do that leadership, based on ethics and values, and leaders who "walked the talk" were critical. But I don't think I really heard any "how to's" in that discussion. And I am not sure if there is any universal set of "how to's".

Geoff Colvin, in his book Talent Is Overrated: What Really Separates World-Class Performers from Everybody Else, talks about where the passion comes from that makes someone be a world class performer. His discussion really became one of motivation and whether world class performers were extrinsically or intrinsically motivated. Of course we all know there has been a ton of verbage written about that. My belief is that we all have an inidividual genetic make up that predesposes us to do some things better than other things. Then extrinsic factors take over "motivating" us to use, or not to use, those genetic "talents." Those that get motivated or rewarded to use those talents have the opportunity through what Colvin calls "deliberate practice" to then turn that talent into world class achievement.

This makes me wonder if the discussion of engagement and leadership boils down to a discussion of extrinsic motivation providing a situation that allows intrinsic talents and interests to take over. Is engagement just motivation theory in a different guise?

What do you "practicing theorists" out there think? Help me develop my thinking. Leave comment or comments, it is easy to do.

Do You Want Happy Employees?

"Everyone wants happy employees, right? Happy employees are productive, inventive, and supportive of all you do."

I saw this stated in an article and it got me to thinking. Do I really want happy employees? Or do I want satisfied employees? Or do I want motivated employees? It all depends I guess on how you define those terms. The article talked about happy employees being well paid, but not paid too much. One could argue that a happy employee would be one who is paid to do whatever they wanted to do. Pay me to surf the Internet all day and I will be happy. But that doesn't do much for the company and soon everyone will be unhappy. No company, no paycheck.

The same thing could be said about the definition of safisfaction. Some may be satisfied to do as little as possible and still get paid for it.

No, I think I want motivated employees. But that needs definition too. I want employees motivated to produce high quality work and contribute to the success of the organization. I motivate them through the use of rewards of compensation, learning, challenge, structure, affiliation, involvement and achievement. If this makes them happy and satisfied all the much better. But I am not willing to just settle for happy or satisfied.

What about you?

A Different View of the Organizational Chart

I had to chuckle when I read today's posts from BNET. They present a satirical look at employees, motivation, problems and what they called the Honest Org Chart. They present the work of Dr. Lawrence Kersten of Dispair, Inc. a demotivational company. He talks about how the typical org chart visually mispresents the importance of employees because the boxes are all the same size. They suggest using larger boxes to represent the size of the salary of the position, thus the bigger the salary the bigger the box on the chart, and the smaller the salary the smaller the box. They contend that this will visually tell lower level employees how unimportant they are to the organization, a good thing in their de-motivational thesis.

It is obviously a tongue-in-cheek presentation, but should give you pause to think about your own org chart. Does it tell everyone what it should? How might you do it better?

Motivational Fit: Two Shortcut Questions to Good Employees

Fellow HR blogger Kris Dunn, The HR Capitalist, posted a blog the other day about interviewing. He mentioned the standard way most managers interview, the hypothetical question methodology and its pitfalls. He talked about behavioral interviewing and apparently he is a fan and user, as am I. He did point out the downside of it, and I agree, which is, if not practiced the interviewer falls back into the hypothetical mode. It is very effective, but it does take training and practice and a willingness to ask the hard questions.

Kris suggests using two questions, which he feels cut through the B.S. These are:

• Tell me when you have been most satisfied in your career.
• Tell me when you have been least satisfied in your career.

He suggests "Those two questions measure Motivational Fit and are stunning in their simplicity. Assuming you like the background and experiences of the candidate and are confident they can do the job, you really only need to evaluate if your company, the specific opportunity and the candidate are a fit for each other. So ask these questions one at a time. Once you get the response from the candidate, ask "why?" and say "tell me more" multiple times. Then, s.h.u.t. u.p. Seriously - stop talking. Don't bail the candidate out, but rather force them to tell you what really jazzes them about jobs and companies, and subsequently, what drives them crazy."

I like this. I have one client where we have had a difficult time finding the right match for the executive positions. The background and experience have been good, but the "fit" has not been there despite DISC behavioral profiles. So I am going to suggest to him we use these questions, perhaps that will be the solution.

Warm Chair Attrition

I was reading a newsletter called the Herman Trend Alert today, an older issue on the subject of fear and the paralyzing effect it can have on employees. In that discussion they talked about something they called "Warm Chair Attrition". They describe this as employees who are unhappy, but "... these employees still collect paychecks, take up space, and infect their fellow associates. It would seem to be good news for employers: their workers will not leave. However, bottom line, disaffected employees are not particularly productive."

Do you have workers like this? I have met some. They don't leave for several reasons, such as fear of not being able to find another job, fear of having to move, fear of the unknown, laziness or a lack of motivation. Our task as managers and human resources professionals becomes to help identify these employees and either turn them around or move them out.

How have you done this? Or have you? Is this something your company lives with because it is easier to get some work out of them than it is to try to find someone to replace them?

Freakonomics as a Lesson for HR

I am reading a very interesting book called Freakonomics ( I know, I am behind the curve). The premise of the book is the study of incentives. Don't let this, or the fact that it is an economics book, frighten you. It is VERY interesting. One of their fundamental ideas is that "Incentives are the cornerstone of modern life. And understanding them.... is the key to solving just about any riddle, from violent crime to sports cheating to online dating." (Told you it was interesting.)

Further, they describe "... the study of incentives: how people get what they want, or need, especially when other people want or need the same thing." And "There are three basic flavors of incentive: economic, social, and moral. Very often a single incentive scheme will include all three varieties." As I was reading this I was thinking this is also the cornerstone of human resources. We are always wondering how to motivate employees. What incentives do we use to make them work better, harder, smarter, longer? And often we are puzzled. Why does one thing work for one person and something else works for the next person.

There are some good insights in this book for human resources managers and I strongly suggest you read it and try to apply those insights to your work place.