Continuing on the theme of what you should avoid as you take on a Recognition Resolution, be sure not to complicate the simplicity of recognition. When making recognition available to all, which we’ve seen is most effective with peer to peer recognition, always keep clearly in mind who your power users are and remember they are far outnumbered by your casual users.
In a recent post to his excellent HR Technology blog, Steve Boese spoke well on this when discussing the new Apple iPad and the likely response from users. His points translate well to strategic recognition programs, too.
“In the enterprise of say 10,000 people that are the planned users of workforce technology (e.g. a performance management system), maybe 100 or so people could be placed in the category of ‘power users’. They need the most advanced functionality, can adapt to a less than intuitive design, and often are willing to spend long periods of time learning how to use the technology.
Many mistakenly think that recognition is only about expressing appreciation – telling someone thank you and moving on. In reality, recognition is about far more and, when applied strategically as in peer-to-peer recognition programs, it encourages teamwork and builds chemistry.
Kris Dunn, the HR Capitalist, wrote well about this, keying off this basketball highlights video:
“For those of you that don’t know the culture of basketball, it’s now common and customary for teammates to come up after a free throw and give the shooter a high/low five before he shoots his second shot.
“Let’s look at what Bogut [the shooter] did. His team (the Bucks) are in the dramatic minority in that the two teammates on the side of the lane did not come up to encourage him after the first shot. I’m guessing Bogut is used to this, because instead of staying on the line, he comes forward and is either trying to give himself encouragement or is mocking the fact that his teammates won’t give him encouragement that has become customary at the college and pro level. Get with the program, he seems to be saying. Either way, it’s bad.
A week ago on Employee Appreciation Day, I issued a challenge to make recognition an ongoing effort and not a once or twice a year affair. With that in mind, let me offer you a few more cautionary tales on how not to recognize as you make recognition part of every day. Two common ways to wreck recognition is with thoughtless rewards and thoughtless methodologies.
1) Thoughtless Rewards: If people on your team have achieved something truly worthy of recognition and reward, don’t ruin the experience by assuming you know the tastes and desires of all employees equally. This story from the Fistful of Talent blog illustrates my point perfectly. Marisa Keegan tells the story of her brother and his team members who were recognized equally (but not appropriately) for successfully completing a very profitable project. All team members received an iPod from the manager. Marisa’s brother turned to his interpreter and signed, “Are you freaking kidding me?” As Marisa writes: “Who gives a deaf guy an iPod?”
Let’s be clear. The terms employee engagement and employee satisfaction are NOT interchangeable. This article is one of the worst examples I’ve seen of the terms being used interchangeably, to great confusion.
Why does this matter? Employees can be quite satisfied with their job, your company and their place in it without ever engaging in the work. Think about it. Have you ever had an employee or colleague who was perfectly satisfied to come to work every day where they could happily surf the web, Facebook with their friends or play computer games? Perhaps that’s a bit extreme, but we all know employees who are satisfied with being left alone in their mediocrity.
Do you know who the real power players are in your organization? I don’t mean your star salesperson, either. I mean those people who are the “go-to” people when you need to get something done.
Who’s the mid-level associate who always brings the project in on time and under budget, even though he’s not the one ultimately responsible for the project? Who’s the administrative assistant that everyone goes to with this request: “I know it’s not your job to do this, but I really need help. Can you do XYZ for me?” And the answer is always, “Sure. Happy to help.”
Those are your hidden power players. Unfortunately, they are also the ones most frequently forgotten in traditional elitist recognition programs that focus on the top 10% in an organization. Often, their direct managers are unaware of how much help they lend to others outside of their official job descriptions. What happens when they’re not appreciated for their efforts?
Last week we looked at various attributes of recognition done well. This week will be a few examples of what recognition is not.
First up, Paul Hebert over at Incentive Intelligence and the i2i blog recently posted a couple of interesting ideas on this topic. First, in a post on the differences between incentives and recognition, Paul made this point:
“Incentive programs do NOT provide motivation. Incentive programs provide direction. Incentive programs provide employees with clues to what you as the sponsor think they should be working on/toward.”
This is an important distinction. Well designed incentives programs can certainly provide clarity for those participating in them on precisely what their short-term goal is. Conversely, after-the-fact recognition can provide direction on long-term objectives by reinforcing those actions or behaviors that help achieve strategic objectives. In this way, recognition can also be a motivator by acknowledging mastery of skills along the way.
In an effort to encourage appreciation of employees, Recognition Professionals International created Employee Appreciation Day as a day to focus attention on the efforts of all employees, in all industries and thank them for their work.
This isn’t enough. We know strategic recognition works in increasing employee engagement, productivity and loyalty. So what are you waiting for? One day a year where you better not forget to say thank you?
As I said in this news release, today should not be just a one-day celebration. Rather, today should be a wake-up call to make a commitment to recognize and appreciate employees year-round and see firsthand the impact that a recognition strategy can have on business results.
What’s your excuse for not yet actioning a strategic recognition program that can boost employee engagement by 10-15% in one year?
Judith M. Bardwick, clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of California San Diego, recently posted to the Huffington Post included the transcript of her interview with literary critic Robert Morris on employee recognition. Judith hits on four best practices of strategic recognition: be timely, be specific, be meaningful and be personal.
“I find the most effective forms of recognition are personal and either spontaneous or very close in time to a significant accomplishment. … Whether literally or symbolically, say thanks! and in a timely fashion. … What’s necessary is exquisitely simple: in one way or another, express your gratitude meaningfully and personally for what someone has done and your real pleasure in having them around. … “An easy and very effective sign of appreciation, for example, is a letter from someone’s boss — or that person’s boss — signaling appreciation for very specific accomplishments. In itself, that’s effective. It’s even more effective when, for example, flowers are sent to that person’s family thanking the family for their generous gift of that person’s time.”
Trust plays a powerful role in retention. We’ve talked before about the death of the 19th century style of management: command and control. But what replaces it?
I like the phrase I recently saw of “trust and track.” As explained by an entrepreneur who has achieved great success with this method, trust and track “involves educating employees about what it takes for the company to be successful, then trusting them to act accordingly. … If done right, trust and track can allow a company to be nimble, flexible and productive enough to perform at the highest level through good economies and bad.”
How does this play out in large organizations? This year’s Fortune No. 1 best company to work for: SAS. SAS is the world’s largest privately held software business and has been profitable every year of its existence. In fact, in 2009 SAS grew 2.2%, the second or third most profitable year on record. How’d they do this in the midst of recession? Trust and track.
A couple of recent articles in Human Resources Executive Online touched on the importance of employee loyalty and retention.
In “Managing Turnover’s Disruptions,” Tom Starner emphasized the costs associated with turnover and how to minimize them. Interestingly, the referenced research found that the negative impact of employee turnover on customer service could by mitigated through smaller work teams who were able to more quickly introduce new workers to the company’s culture.
Why is this true? Smaller work groups tend to foster more horizontal loyalty between team members to reduce turnover, while indoctrination into company culture aligns the employee more quickly with objectives and values.
A few weeks ago in my regular, highly unscientific poll (take our latest poll here), I asked: “Who are you most loyal to?” As you can see, loyalty to self was by far the largest with boss the least.
While this may not be surprising, it should certainly be concerning. In the face of overwhelming reports, research and studies that nearly 90% of employees are currently engaging in some level of activity to leave their current position, company leadership should have employee loyalty (not just retention) at the top of their priority list for 2010, especially as the recovery begins in earnest.A recent article in Talent Management really got to the heart of the loyalty matter, explaining why:
“Loyalty is no longer synonymous with retention. Just because employees stick with it doesn’t mean they are engaged and therefore as productive as they could be. Employee loyalty no longer means one-directional communication. It is not just an employee being loyal to his managers and the company.
“Employee loyalty should be thought of as circular communication. It starts with leaders creating initiatives that will earn employee loyalty. When employee loyalty initiatives begin with leaders who ‘walk the walk’ and treat employees how they want to be treated, results can be tremendous.”
Are you involved with employee engagement initiatives at some level? If you’re not already a member of the Employee Engagement Network, I highly recommend it as a place to interact with and learn from some of the best minds on this topic. David Zinger, the founder of the Network, recently solicited one-sentence advice for managers on employee engagement and compiled them into an ebook. I’ve categorized some of my favorites into three groups below, but I give David the first word:
“Recognize that employee engagement is not a fluffy extra but the fundamental way you will get work done with others through conversation, co-creation, community, mutuality, and other inclusive approaches to achieve results that matter to organizations, customers, leaders, employees and yourself.” – David Zinger
Meaning & Purpose
- “Having a shared and compelling vision, continuously reinforced by communication, transparency, involvement and leading by example.” – Winston Tikaram
CBS Money Watch on Bnet recently featured an article on what to do if you hate your job. Looking at why people are “dissatisfied” with their jobs, the author cites: “They don’t feel like they are contributing to anything meaningful, they aren’t passionate about what they do, and they don’t feel like their best talents are being utilized.”
That’s a fairly accurate summary of why employees are disengaged in today’s workplace. Why should management care, though, as long as the work is getting done? Recent Gallup findings offer a strong argument as to why you should:
“In average organizations, the ratio of engaged to actively disengaged employees is 1.5:1. In world-class organizations, the ratio of engaged to actively disengaged employees is near 8:1. Actively disengaged employees erode an organization’s bottom line while breaking the spirits of colleagues in the process. Within the U.S. workforce, Gallup estimates this cost to be more than $300 billion in lost productivity alone.”
Unfortunately the Money Watch article offered only two solutions for the dissatisfied employee: find a new job or “use you other 8 hours” to do what you care about. From the manager point of view, that second option is almost worst than the first as it encourages the employee to disengage even more while at work.
A constant complaint about “employee engagement” is that the various research houses define engagement differently, offer different surveys to measure engagement, and then report those results in ways that mean different things in different environments and cultures. For example, Gallup found that Germany’s level of engaged employees is just 13%, but this new Barometer found 89% of German employees to be engaged or highly engaged.
What Barometer? The Conference Board (TCB) recently released a report (subscription required for full access) that attempted to find the common ground in the various approaches to employee engagement by coming to a single definition of engagement and provide a consistent measure for engagement everywhere in the world.
Adding to the litany of engagement definitions, here’s TCB’s: “An employee can be considered engaged if he or she is intellectually stimulated and passionate about his or her work, and demonstrates that through his or her intended actions.”
I like this definition because it speaks to both attitude and actions/results. TCB’s approach also eliminates perceived cultural perception differences to help a company truly understand the level of engagement across different cultural regions and then directly compare those results without “norming” for cultural differences, a process that introduces error into survey results.
What does this mean? In TCB’s words: “The state of mind called employee engagement is experienced in much the same way by workers throughout the world.”
What do you think about this definition of engagement and the idea of cultural universality? Is it too narrow? Too broad?
It’s that time again. Finalizing the annual performance review and offering performance raises where earned. However, just like last year or perhaps even more so, budgets are tight and increases will be very small or non-existent. The Wall Street Journal recently reported, “Employers plan meager 2.8% raises in 2010, after 2% bumps in 2009, according to Towers Watson.”
So what are you to do to reward employees for their stellar efforts in the face of a very difficult year? How are you to motivate them and help them engage to achieve company goals for the year?
I liked how the Guardian put it in a recent article: “If people understand the need to change, can do it without too much hassle, and can understand the positive impact of their actions, it’s more likely to happen.”
Can understand the positive impact of their actions – when you need to motivate others to achieve a task, are you just telling them what to do or are you giving them the bigger picture so they understand the value of what they are doing and why it matters?
How can you do that in this era of tight budgets? We recommend investing just 1% of total payroll – a very small investment, indeed – into strategic recognition that encourages repetition of desired and needed employee behaviors and actions within, critically, the bigger picture of your company goals and objectives. Tell people thanks for their work AND how those efforts matter to their team members, to the division and to the company as a whole.
(C) 2008 Ulrich Kerler & Marcus Schiesser Report an issue | Feedback | Privacy Policy | TOS