BE Haines Execution to Die For

7/30/2019 BE Haines Execution to Die For

1/17

executionto die fore Managers Guide To Making It Happen


2/17

Index of Contents Page

Wh hs hppe!

Part 1 Planning

Sec 11 the Hb he P wh we e


3/17

20 Execution to Die For Execution to Die For

10. The P lanners underestimated the costs o imp lementat ion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

11 There were no clear subsidiar y objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

Sec 14 ac P 117

n Be hppe Pe n

12. There was no Action Program that set out the objective o each action, who was to be . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

responsible or it and its completion date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

13. Management underestimated the time required or implementation those charged with .

its implementation did not have enough hours in the day to complete the actions that

they were responsible or by the date indicated anddo their normal jobs at the same time . . . . 120

Part 2 imPlEmEntation making it HaPPEn! 121

Sec 21 os ae 127

n Be hppe Pe n

14. There are diering views on where the organisation is now and this has resulted

in varying levels o commitment to the implementation o the Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

15. Sta were each told what to do but not how their role tted into the big picture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

16. Coordinat ion between the var ious unct iona l groups i s l acking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

Sec 22 mee Che 133

n Be hppe Pe n17. Management adopted the attitude o do it or else there was no consultation,

no eedback, nothing! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

18. The rationale behind the proposed changes was not suciently explained to those

most aected by them . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

19. Many employees are very anxious about the changes they are being asked to make

yet they are made to eel that such anxiety is both unreasonable and unnecessary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

20. A lot o people couldnt see the benet o the changes proposed so ater the initial

push ran out o steam, they resorted to the ir o ld ways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

Sec 23 leeshp 145

n Be hppe Pe n

21. Leadership at the top o the organisation is largely invisible and remote rom those charged . . . . . . . . . . .

with the detailed implementat ion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 48

22. Strong leadership at the top is not mirrored by good leadership at lower management

levels the pressure to manage things leaves no time to lead people . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

Sec 24 tes tew

n Be hppe

23. Our organisation has embraced the concept o teams and teamwork but their

establishment is seen as an end in itsel rather than as a means to an end .. . .

24. Management started a team development program but money became tight so it

rather zzled out . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sec 25 Epee Eee

n Be hppe 25. The general view among employees was that their knowledge, eelings, needs and as

being ignored by s enior m anagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sec 26 Cc he

n Be hppe

26. Communication a t a ll l evel s o the organ isat ion i s l acking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

27. Feedback rom those at the coalace o the organisation was never responded

to so ceased to be given . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Part 3 monitoring, mEaSuring, adaPting

Sec 31 m

n Be hppe

28. Processes or monitoring the implementation o the Plan are insucient and

undisciplined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

29. We can never nd time to hold meetings that everyone who should attend can atte

3 0. Our meet ing s a re n ot a s p roduc ti ve a s t hey shoul d be . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sec 32 mes

n Be hppe

31. We tend to place too much reliance on quantitative measures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

32. When issues are identied we tend to take action beore sucient analysis

has been undertaken . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sec 33 ap n Be hppe

33. Action programs to rectiy problems are initiated with insucient thought

given to their implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


4/17

22 Execution to Die For

Part 4 rEinvEnting tHE WHEEl or rEviSing tHE Plan

n Be hppe P

34. Changes in the external environment made the Plan increasingly irrelevant and

so it was gradually abandoned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

35. Although we recognise that the external environment is changing, we continue

to ocus on implementation rather than revise the Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

36. Although we recognised that the external environment has changed and we needed to . . . . . . . . . .

change our strategies accordingly, we chose the wrong strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Part 5 ExECution to diE For - tHE Wagon WHEEl Way

Psscp


5/17

Execution to Die For

Section 2.4 Teams & Teamwork

the w bes hppe e esse hs Sec

Barrier Page No.

Barrier No. 23 Our organisation has embraced the concept of teams

and teamwork but their establishment is seen as an end in itself rather

than as a means to an end

157

Barrier No. 24 Management started a team development program but

money became tight so it rather fzzled out 163


6/17

156 Execution to Die For IMPLEMENTATION TEAMS AND TEAMWORK

24 tes tew

tes tewrepresents the ourth egg in the implementation omElEttE. Its position is not a

refection on its importance as an implementation actor; it is simply that eective tes tewcannot

exist in the absence o Organisational Alignment, eective Management o Change and Leadership at all levels o the

organisation.

Many will be amiliar with the metaphor o migrating geese as an exemplar o teamwork. How by fying in a

V-ormation, the whole skein adds at least a 71% increase to its range than i each bird few on its own. How when

the lead goose tires, it rotates back in the skein or a rest and another goose takes its position. How geese honk

rom behind to encourage the leaders to keep up their pace. Yet the oundation o the geeses remarkable teamwork

is their organisational alignment. People sharing a common direction and a sense o community and commitment to

a goal will achieve it more easily and quickly when they travel on the uplit o one another.

I have a particular interest in tes tewas the co-developer o a eedback instrument 30 that measures

how eectively members o a team work together. However, we do not use the word team generically. Rather

the term team is reserved or those workgroups that achieve the highest levels o perormance. The collective

noun that we use is Workgroups and we have identied six levels o workgroup eectiveness as ollows:

Group o Individuals

Embryonic Workgroup

Developing Workgroup

Established Workgroup

High Perormance Workgroup

High Perormance Team

Suce to say that High Perormance Teams are a very rare breed and a good part o the reason or this is that, as is

the case with Leadership, the culture, the climate, the environment call it what you will is not conducive to the

development otes tewat the highest level.

Many still believe that teams can be created. Call a group o people a team, appoint a team leader, subject them to

a weekend o abseiling and watch them grow, mushroom like, into a team that the SAS or Manchester United ans

would be proud o. O course, it doesnt work that way. tes tewevolve over a period o time

but as with the development o a strategic plan and the order in which each component o the Implementation

omElEttE is addressed, there is a process that can be ollowed that will oster their evolution.

There are many dierent types o teams or workgroups - but the basic division is between permanent and

temporary. The latter type is established to achieve a specic goal and when that has been achieved, it is disbanded.

This type o workgroup is oten reerred to as a Task Force or Project Team.

30 Towards Ten Thousand workgroup perormance accelerator a joint venture between bpi consultants and Compass Motivational

Solutions

The permanent workgroup has two basic orms. First there is the Functional Workgroup whos

perorm very similar roles, oten providing specialist services to other workgroups. The memb

department or an accounts receivable workgroup are typical examples. The other permanent

unctional or Multi-skilled workgroup. Both types o workgroup would typically handle a comp

as managing the growth and protability o a particular product group or groups o products or

business development in a particular geographical region or market sector. Equally a cross-unc

might handle a specic process such as order ullment or product development.

With the Cross-unctional or Multi-skilled workgroup, each member has a very dierent role

required i the workgroup is to carry out its intended purpose. The dierence between the

workgroups is that with the Cross-unctional workgroup each member has a particular role

Multi-skilled workgroup, as the name suggests, members are c apable o handling a number o

circumstances dictate.

The trends in organisational structures are twoold. Firstly, the concept o workgroups is now

to be applied to permanent ones and with Cross-unctional and Multi-skilled workgroups, team

or eective operations. Secondly, Cross-unctional workgroups that operate across departme

boundaries are ar more prevalent as organisations strive or greater speed, fexibility and respo

Barrier 23 Our organisation has embraced the concept o teams and teamw

establishment is seen as an end in itsel rather than as a means to an end

One o the pitalls that many organisations all into is that their ocus is on the appearance o te

the substance. By that I mean the initial emphasis is on team building, the development o int

amiliarisation with such concepts as Active Listening, Confict Management and Emotional Inte

the initial ocus should be on such basics as the development o a common purpose, perorman

approach. In that excellent book The Wisdom o Teams by Jon Katzenbach and Douglas Smi

dene a team as a small number o people with complementary skills who are committed to a

perormance goals, and approach or which they hold themselves mutually accountable

When I was rst approached by a client to develop a survey that would measure a teams ee

reviewed my own work experience to gain a basic understanding o what contributes to eectiv

concluded that over a period o twenty years, there was only one instance, lasting or three yea

membership o a high perormance team. The role o the team was business development, iden

developing and negotiating business proposals with prospective customers and then nally writi

agreements that set out the agreed terms and conditions, liabilities and responsibilities o the tw

I then went on to analyse why this period o my work lie had been so satisying both rom a per

perspective and came up with the ollowing reasons.

31 The Wisdom o Teams by Jon Katzenbach & Douglas Smith, published by Harvard Business School Press


7/17


It was a true cross-unctional team each member perormed an essential role in the teams perormance

The team was responsible or carrying out a key component o the Companys business strategy thus the

purpose and goals o the team were highly aligned with those o the Company as a whole

The team had a high degree o autonomy

The team was a small one it had a nucleus o our members but drew on many others on an as needs basis

The team had very clear cut goals and an obvious means o assessing its perormance we either won the

contract or lost it

The curious thing was that we never consciously thought o ourselves as a team and we certainly neither requested

nor received any training in interpersonal relationships. The process o working together so closely on complex and

signicant projects was sucient to generate an enormous respect or each others expertise and commitment tothe teams goals. We would engage in hotly contested debates as to the best course o action but I never recall us

not reaching a consensus that everyone ell in behind. There was a lot o hard work but also a lot o laughter and we

all became riends as well as work colleagues. However, in the nal analysis it is the teams achievements that provide

the best evidence o eective teamwork. Over the three year period, we played seven, won ve and drew two.

My own brie experience as a member o a winning team is echoed by Katzenbach and Smith in The Wisdom o

Teams. As part o their research the authors approached Hewlett-Packard wit h a request to interview a selection o

H-P teams. When they rst spoke o this interest to Dean Morton, then executive vice president and chie operating

ocer o H-P his initial comment was: We dont really think that much about teams here Im not sure we have

that many that would be o interest to you. However, as Katzenbach and Smith were to discover, H-P is populated

by hundreds o teams ormed or the most part inormally to exploit new business opportunities in new markets

and new products. The ormation o such teams is seen as the natural corollary o H-Ps perormance ethic and

management philosophy. The catalyst to team ormation is a signicant perormance challenge. In short, teams are

regarded as a means to an end rather than as an end in themselves.

What Katzenbach and Smith identied in their examination o teams was a undamental change in the philosophy

behind their ormation. When organisational as opposed to sporting teams became the ocus o research among

consultants and organisational psychologists and sociologists ater the end o the Second World War, the primary

purpose in their ormation was to benet the work lie o the individual members. The spin-o was enhanced

organisational perormance. Today, its the other way around. The primary benet o teams is seen as enhanced

organisational perormance with the spin-o being quality o individual work lie. The philosophy o workgroups is

undergoing subtle but ar reaching change. The ollowing table builds on one taken rom Managing Teams32 by

Lawrence Holpp

32 Managing Teams by Lawrence Holpp, published by McGraw-Hill 1999

Emphasis ..

from

Rationale

As an end in themselves

Quality of Working Life

Focus

Operational

Purpose

To get along better

Employee engagement

Usage

Outside main organisational structure

Measure of effectiveness

How do we all feel?

Training

Team building groups,interpersonal skills,

Performance appraisal

Individual

Lifespan

Temporary

Culture

Elitist

Emphasis ..

to

As a means to an end

Organisational performance

Strategic & Operational

To improve work performance

Organisational alignment

Main building block oforganisati

Have we achieved our goals?

Team skills, quality tools, problem

personal growth tools, communic

process skills

Workgroup & Individual

Permanent

The way we do things around he

Wps (es)

IMPLEMENTATION TEAMS AND TEAMWORK


8/17


The undamental changes in the rationale or teams clearly have a major impact on the attributes one is seeking to

develop among its members and the criteria used to measure their eectiveness.

One o most signicant changes is the trend away rom temporary teams to perm anent ones. Workgroups are no

longer the preserve o project teams and task orces: the concepts otes teware being increasingly

applied to permanent teams, particularly those that make or do things.

In general, temporary teams have two things going or them that permanent team s dont have. Firstly, there is usually

greater clarity over the teams goal to develop a new product, to introduce a new IT system or to exploit a new

business opportunity. Secondly, when teams are temporary, there is more latitude in the selection o team members.

Team members may be selected not just or their technical expertise but also or their ability to perorm a particularteam role. Such teams are oten seen as the proving ground or the organisations best and brightest they are the

elite, the Navy Seals o the organisations orces.

However i the company moves to introduce permanent teams at all levels o the organisation, members will be

selecte d on the basis o technical expert ise alone and the goals o the teams will be less readily dened. However,

the need or each workgroup to develop team status in order to attain the required standard o perormance is

neither easible nor necessary. It is or this latter reason that our own workgroup assessment program reserves

the title o high perorma nce team or only the most outstanding workgroups. Moreover, the achievement o

high perormance workgroup is usually more than adequate or a workgroup to play its role in turning plans into

reality.

Our workgroup assessment program measures the eectiveness o workgroups under eight main headings.

Workgroup Purpose & Goals Workgroup Structure

Workgroup Accountability

Workgroup Development

Interpersonal Relationships

Workgroup Culture

External Relationships

Organisational Culture

The order in which the above are listed represents a hierarchy o the actors that contribute to workgroup

perormance. Thus dening a Workgroup Purpose and agreeing on a Workgroup Goal are seen as the undamental

prerequisites. Additionally, the workgroups purposes and the workgroups goals must refect those o the

organisation as a whole. So once again, we pick up on the issue o organisational alignment. Secondly the

Workgroup needs to have a structure. Workgroup members must understand their roles in the workgroup; the

Workgroup must have ground rules that set out how it is to operate and have regular workgroup meetings at which

all members contribute. The Workgroup needs a leader who is preerably a workgroup member. The section on

Workgroup Development ocuses on technical, process and communication skills rather than interpersonal skills and

personal growth. These rst our actors address the basics o workgroup eectiveness. The only valid measure o

workgroup perormance is whether the Workgroup achieves its goal and this will not happen unless the goal meets

the SMART33 criteria, and the Workgroup has the basics o workgroup eectiveness in place. I

o the positive elements o interpersonal relationships and Workgroup Culture will develop as a

It is also important to appreciate that we are not considering issues and actors that are black o

o the more interesting ndings rom our workgroup surveys is the variation in responses rom

workgroup to the same question. However as one would anticipate, the variation diminishes a

rating increases. Yet, even with high perormance workgroups (rated second only to high pero

variations o ve or greater (out o 10) between the lowest and the highest ratings are not unco

overall rating that equates to a Developing Workgroup is recorded, such variations are commo

simply wide variations in the perspective o workgroup members due to a whole variety o acto

Workgroup to lack o role and goal clarity.

The last two actors used to appraise workgroup eectiveness are External Relationships and O

Culture. One aspect o External Relationships reers to one workgroups understanding o the

o other workgroups within the same organisation. This section was added as a consequence o

the original pilots. Understanding what other workgroups do not only acilitates meeting the n

customers and suppliers but also aids organisational alignment.

High Perormance Workgroups, even occasionally High Perormance Teams, can and do exist in

where the culture is not particularly avourable to their development. A signicant perorman

usually the catalyst. In my own case our business development team was not ocially recognis

and prospered in an organisation structured along unctional lines. Nevertheless, there is no do

that is conducive to their development can greatly aid their eectiveness. For example, we hav

correlation between workgroup eectiveness and external leadership as measured by the response

the questionnaire our supervisor/manager takes an active interest in our Workgroups develo

the early validation programs, I was actually present when a group o Sales Representatives comThis was in the days beore the survey was on-line and so it was arranged that the representativ

the survey orm in hard copy in time set aside during an internal sales meeting. The meeting oc

Christmas and was chaired by the Regional Sales Manager. It was very clear to me during the d

ater the completion o the survey that the rapport between the Manager and his Sales team wa

Not only did all his team have an understanding o the overall sales goals or the region and or t

whole but they also knew how their own perormance would impact them. In addition, the Sal

any question put to him straightorwardly and with great rankness and was keen to get his Sale

on all manner o subjects. There was mutual respect between the Manager and his team and th

themselves, appeared to enjoy each others company. There was the usual swapping o war st

o group problem-solving. It thereore came as no surprise to nd that this workgroup achieve

among the six in the same company that participated in the trials.

Our work also supports Katzenbach & Smiths nding that the organisations that oster the mos

workgroups are likely to be more perormance ocused than team ocused. In the ormer case

end, the team is the means. In the latter, the team is the end and perormance is a hoped or c

leads to what Katzenbach and Smith call a pseudo-team, a group that displays the outward trap

33 SMART goals are Specic, Measurable, Achievable, a Result not an activity and Time-related



9/17


which lacks the essentials o team perorma nce purpose and goals, structure and process. No amount o abseiling

(rappelling), PD and training in interpersonal skills can compensate or these shortcomings.

One might assume that o all the potential teams in an organisation, the one whose eectiveness would have the

greatest impact on the organisations perormance would be the Executive Team. As a consequence, members o the

Executive Team should aim or nothing less than t o qualiy as a High Perormance Team. In practice, it would take a

remarkable group o executives to achieve this distinction. Almost by denition, top executives in organisations are

ambitious and competitive. These are two o the traits that got them there in the rst instance. Their own interests in

the nal analysis come beore those o the organisation that employs them. I they are thwarted in their ambitions

or urther promotion, they tend to change organisations. Rather than work together in problem solving activities,

there is a tendency or members to wash their hands o a problem i it relates to an issue that is clearly someoneelses responsibility. I have seen this happen many times w hen presenting the eedback rom a Customer Feedback

Survey. I, or example, customers rate delivery-on-time as poor, everyone turns to the Distribution Manager to

provide an explanation and proer a solution. There is an attitude o thats his problem, not mine rather than

thats our problem, lets analyse it and solve it together. Criticism o the Distribution Manager is muted to non-

existent because you can almost see the thought bubble coming out o everyone elses heads, enclosing the words

dont be too critical, it might be your turn next! The act that each member o the Executive Team manages a

separate unction is the major barrier towards the ac hievement o team status. There are two potential solutions to

this problem.

The rst is to restructure the Executive Team along process rather than unctional lines. Assume that the

organisation has a matrix structure with the usual unctional heads but also cross-unctional workgroups

responsible or each o the major processes. Furthermore , assume that it is the managers o the processes rather

than those o the unctions that orm the Executive Team. The General Manager has the unusual title o General

Manager - Customer Satisaction . This ensures that the other members o the management team are there to

manage the processes that will optimise customer satisac tion. This orm o organisational struct ure has two

major advantages.

One it aligns the whole company behind the aim o satisying the customer and, two, it gives the management

team a central andcommon purpose. In contrast to the unctional Executive Team, the primary loyalties o this

management team are not to their unctional department s but to each other. Adopting such a structure has the

potential to undamentally change the dynamics o the Executive Teams behaviour.

Instead o the individual attitude o its not my problem the team owns the problem

Everyone weighs in with ideas and suggestions as to what the root causes might be and how they may be

solved

Instead o sitting on the sidelines, those who are not primarily responsible or the issue under discussion make

a contribution to the debate because they want other team members to help them when something that they

are primarily responsible or comes up.

This team manages both realities and perceptions with equal commitment. Members acknowledge that

customer perception is reality and i those perceptions are negative, they are not ignored. The issue is simply

how do we change those negative perceptions into positive ones?

As one o the outcomes rom our customer eedback surveys is a weighted index o customer sati

every unction and process contributes, the management team has a common goal to complemen

In many organisations, however, moving to the process structure is not possible or any number

Nevertheless, there is a way to develop executive teamwork even i the unctional management st

The solution is to identiy a common goal that requires the collective eorts o the executive tea

solutions and plan or implementation. The sole criterion is that the goal should have a signica

uture health o the company. Here are some suggestions.

Setting a new goal or the Customer Satisaction Index Setting a goal or accurate, in ull, on time deliveries

Reducing overall costs by a specic percentage

Reduction o the organisations carbon ootprint

Increasing the percentage o recycling

Setting a target or Employee Job Satisaction

Reducing employee turnover to a specic level

There are many more common goals than those examples above but whatever the Goal chosen

certain criteria.

All members o the executive management team must understand that they and their dep

to play in its accomplishment

The Goal must be a Smart one Specic, measurable, achievable, a result not an

related Progress towards the Goal must be capable o objective and quantitative measurement

The Goal must be one that both energises the executive team and the organisation as a

Although the executive management team takes the leading role in the achievement o th

specic contribution rom all the other Workgroups to accomplish it.

Executive management should hold regular meetings at which the sole topic on the agend

the Goal

Barrier 24 We started a team development program but money became tig

fzzled out

The greatest danger acing the proponents o teams is to regard them as an end in themselves.

circumstances, teams are adopted as the latest management ad the new panacea that is going

organisations perormance. No real structural changes are made. The unctional departmentsteams or, slightly more radical, cross-unctional teams are ormed that are superimposed over

unctional structure to orm a matrix. However, in practice, the original unctional structure re

unchanged since no attempt is made to redistribute the levers o power. The establishment o



10/17


a great anare o trumpets and trainers and consultants are brought in to put the new teams through their paces.

Instead o ocusing on purpose, goals, structure and process, the emphasis is almost exclusively on interpersonal

skills active listening, giving helpul criticism, assertiveness, constructive confict etc. Team members learn how to

relate to one another in a more team-like manner but the skills acquired are not harnessed to the task o achieving

clear perormance goals. And, o course, the goals will not be clear i there is a lack o organisational alignment,

inadequate management o change and poor leadership. In eect, a team development program is established that

runs in parallel with the main program o implementing the organisations operational strategies. Lacking integration

with the latter, the ormer will be vulnerable to changes in executive management and budgetary constraints. It will

be seen as a nice-to-have rather than a must-have initiative. In contrast, when teams are established as a means

o achieving clear perormance goals and when they become the building block o the organisational structure, a

convergence takes place whereby team and organisation goals merge. tes teware seen as a meansto an end and are thus accepted as the way we do things around here. When teams are ully embedded in the

organisation and teamwork fourishes not just within teams but between teams, the ability o the organisation to turn

plans into reality will be greatly enhanced.

Its appropriate to end this section on tes tewwith a practical example o what can be achieved

by embracing this orm o organisational structure or the execution o the Plan. I have already reerred to the

work o Marvin Weisbord in the Section on the Management o Change 34 and one o the reasons I nd his teachings

so powerul is that Weisbord, in his ormative years, ar rom being an academic, ran the amily business that had

been ounded by his ather on the eve o World War 2. The business involved printing technology and direct mail

marketing and through a willingness to adopt new technology and a avourable business environment, the business

grew at an annual rate o 25%. Weisbord knew nothing o management concepts, had never read a management

book but despite describing his work lie as going to war every day, he was subconsciously absorbing a mass

o experience that was to stand him in good stead when his management epiphany came. It arrived in the mid

1960s when a riend o his, who was a compensation specialist or a large corporation, gave him a copy o Douglas

McGregors The Human Side o Enterprise. He devoured it in one weekend and in his own words, it blew my

mind.

Despite being philosophically and emotionally inclined towards Theory Y, Weisbord realised that their business was

structured according to the dictates o Theory X time clocks, narrow work rules, jobs so subdivided even an idiot

would be bored, grown people treated like children, never let in on decisions, having no consequential inormation

about the business or even their own work, expected to deliver or management and not to reason why, all in return

or a $5 raise every six months, a turkey at Christmas, and a chance, i they didnt die o boredom in the meantime,

to become supervisors. Emboldened by what he had read, Weisbord decided to introduce work teams beginning

with the order processing department. This particular department was extremely vulnerable to absenteeism. There

were approximately 25 people in this department where the process was subdivided into ve narrow unctions.

One group opened the mail and sent out samples; another group entered the orders; a third group checked the

credit worthiness o customers and a ourth typed up production orders that were then passed to the production

department. Finally a th group sent out new invoices and checked incoming receipts against unpaid bills. The total

group processed between 200 300 orders that arrived each day by phone and mail. One absentee in one unctioncould eectively reduce output by 20%; two absentees in the same unction and output shrank by 40% despite the

34 Productive Workplaces Revisited by Marvin Weisbord, published by Jossey-Bass 2004

act that 90% o the workorce was still present. Weisbords concept was to establish ve sel-

teams, organised around groups o customers. Once the members became skilled in all o the

absence o one team member would have no eect on the other our teams and a negligible im

question. Thus team members could acquire new sets o skills; they could set their own goals a

could better appreciate how their role related to the achievements o the company as a whole,

achieve unheard o levels o fexibility and hopeully productivity. The proposal was presented t

with mixed reactions. Two were enthusiastic about the scheme, two didnt think it would wor

The rst two became foating coordinators and coaches to the teams and the others elected to

together. Weisbords instructions to the teams consisted o one sentence - teach each other

Rather than the smooth transition that Weisbord naively anticipated, problems started to suracin the main by the previous job specialisation. No one appreciated the total process and so whe

either at the boundary o one role with another or pre or post process, the team members didn

None had been taught to think or themselves. The reality o the situation was that the Compan

200 inventory items, tens o t housands o customers and 25 order processors each o which onl

20% o the order processing sequence. There were plenty o opportunities or things to go wro

be made and unhappy customers to result. Weisbords colleague, the one who had given him Mc

Side o Enterprise and who now worked with Weisbord ull time, suggested t hat they hold a we

one member o each team would be present and at each meeting the representatives would raise

problems and between them and the other participants they would nd and implement solutions

I shall have more to say about the role that meetings play in Part 3 o Execution to Die For b

this stage that Weisbord was appalled at the prospect o holding meetings. Ater all, stretched

would the order processing teams make up or the time lost preparing or and taking part in me

meetings were held that dragged on interminably and Weisbord could not believe that such a

generate such a long list o problems, or that so many people knew so little about what they we

me. In the past, every little problem was passed on to the super visors who in turn passed on

Weisbord. They held our such meetings and still the problems kept on coming. With the th

Weisbord decided to end the work team experiment it was simply too time costly. Theory Y

but not in practice. He would revert to Theory X. At the end o the th meeting he would an

experiment had ended.

The meeting commenced and Weisbord somewhat wearily asked or the latest issues to be rais

any this week, was the response. We knew how to handle all the problems rom our other m

This episode had a proound impact on Weisbord. He understood or the rst time that the e

organisations was learning, not coercing and controlling output. I realised that it took time; req

to be solved; involved trial, error, give, take, and experimentation. Above all, it generated trem

also had my rst hint o what good managers do instinctively; involve people in setting importan

chance to learn, oer eedback and support, provide tools and ideas, and stay out o the way.

There are a number o post scripts to this story. Productivity in the order processing departme

Order processing capability went rom under 300 to more than 400 orders per day. The two r



11/17

166 Execution to Die For Execution to Die For

let or more traditional workplaces they would eel comortable in. Absenteeism and sta turnover reduced to

almost zero. Employee engagement rocketed. The nal word rom Weisbord. Without any training, without any

ocial team building, without any social technology except fip charts, we had gotten remarkable results.

This Section on tes tewcompletes the ourth component o the omElEttE actors. So ar

the progression has been as ollows. When we plan, we need to separate what we are going to do rom how

we are going to do it. The latter involves looking at the implications o the ormer on every unction within our

organisation and drating up an initial Action Plan to commence implementation. I we have done our planning right,

we should have aligned the Support and Enabling Functions to the unctional objectives and hence to the overall goal.

In the same way as we have aligned the business strategy, we need to align the sta. Organisational Alignment is the

basis o eective execution. Next we need to understand and manage the changes that will be necessary to executethe Plan and this requires Leadership at every level o the organisation. Teams, each o which has a clear purpose and

perormance goal that is aligned with the organisations overall purpose and Goal, are the next step and that brings

us to the last omElEttE actor Employee Engagement

Section 2.5 Employee Engagement

the w be hppe s esse hs Se

Barrier

Barrier No. 25 the general view among employees was that their

knowledge, feelings, needs and aspirations were being ignored bysenior management

omElEttE


12/17

168 Execution to Die For IMPLEMENTATION EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT

25 Epee Eee

Epee Eee is the th and last o the omElEttE actors that infuence the quality o execution

o an organisations plans. Its position in last place indicates that it is the most dependent o the ve variables. I do

not know who coined the term Employee Engagement but like so many terms in use today, it is promoted as some

great new insight whereas the reality is that ever since human beings ormed into groups and ollowed the dictates

o their leaders, they have experienced highs and lows in their emotional attachment to the group to which they

belonged. For hundreds o years we have used the word morale or the term esprit de corps to describe this

eeling o collective well-being but now we reer to it as Epee Eee.

Actually, I believe the term to be a misnomer. It should be EmployeEngagement because I view it as theresponsibility o the employer to engage with its employees rather than vice versa. I love the story o the Harvard

Business Proessor who asked his students what hospitals did. They cure the sick was the response. No, doctors

and nurses do that the role o the hospital is to provide the environment in which the best doctors and nurses

want to work. Now how about a collective exercise to adapt what the Harvard Proessor said to your place o

work?

Accepting that Epee Eee is a vital ingredient or turning plans into reality, the process or engaging

employees is as ollows. It begins with a well-conceived strategic plan that refect s the macro and micro environment

acing the organisation and takes into account the organisations strengths and weaknesses. An overall goal to which

every employee can relate and which meets the SMART criteria is agreed. The implications o the plan are then

considered or every Support Function in conjunction with those that manage them. Finally the implications o the

initiatives and changes in the Support Functions on the two Enabling Functions o Human Resources and Finance are

determined. Based on this assessment, a judgment on the plans easibility can be made. This completes the Wagon

Wheel. Only i the plan is deemed to be easible is an initial Action Plan drawn up.

The rst requirement or successul execution is Organisational Alignment. Everyone needs to appreciate where

the organisation is now, the destination and the journey and their particular role in getting there. Everyone must

appreciate the changes that will be required and the rationale behind them. Management can then begin the task o

managing the change process. This involves rstly understanding change and the reality that dierent people move

rom the Room o Contentment to the Rooms o Denial and Conusion at dierent speeds beore entering the Room

o Renewal. Every eort is made to reduce the orces restraining change to uncouple the sel-closing mechanism

to the door o status quo. Leadership is required at all levels o the organisation i the necessary changes are to be

accomplished with the minimum o resistance and resentment. The transition to Teams and Teamwork will only

happen i the basics o workgroup purpose, goal, structure and process are in place. I any organisation carries o

this total procedure successully, how could the vast majority o employees ail to be engaged?

Barrier 25The general view among employees was that their knowledge, eelings, needs and

aspirations were being ignored by senior management

Answering the question as to what motivates people at work has occupied the minds o many s

consultants. However, it was the American Frederick Taylor35, born in 1856, who was the rst

then existing philosophy o authoritarianism and employee exploitation that had been dominant

o the Industrial Revolution. By the time Taylor had obtained his engineering degree rom the S

Technology in New Jersey at the age o 26, his work experience as a pattern maker and machinis

Hydraulic Works in Philadelphia had already convinced him that coercion or the exercise o th

did not work. Threatening workers with physical and mental violence merely encouraged a hun

resistance and led to a vicious downward spiral. It became Taylors lies work to reduce the de

between workers and management. In 1915, he published his book The Principles o Scienti

which he explained how workers could make much more money and management could cut co

cooperated on goals, work methods and quality. Taylor was the original time and motion enginmachine and human perormance in his relentless search or the one best way to accomplish

whilst Taylor scientic management methods were rightly regarded as enlightened in compariso

they replaced, they relied very heavily on extrinsic motivators such as pay and operated at the b

o Maslows Hierarchy o Needs. Maslow, in his book A Theory o Motivation (published in 1

levels o need and postulated that it was only ater the needs on level 1 were satised would th

satisying those needs on the next level. The ve levels are:

1. physiological (ood, water, sleep)

2. saety (protection, security, stability)

3. social (aection, riendship, acceptance)

4. ego (prestige, success, sel-esteem)

5. sel-actualisation (sel-ullment)

Taylors ocus was on productivity but his experiments showed that productivity was optimised

were recognised. Good working conditions (at the time, expectations werent that high), perm

work saety were all taken into account by Taylor in contrast to the Dickensian conditions that

the Industrial Revolution.

A ew years ago, I undertook an employee survey or a company that employed around 100 sta

60 worked on the shop foor. B ecause o the number o Vietnamese employees, we had the eq

survey orms translated into their native tongue.

It was noticeable that the satisaction levels among the Vietnamese were signicantly higher tha

Australians who had either been born here or had been resident here rom an early age.

A closer examination o the eedback revealed the reasons or this observation. It was all to do

and where people saw themselves on Maslows Hierarchy o Needs.

35 For those wishing to learn more about Frederick Taylor, see the One Best Way by Robert Kanigel, publ

1997


13/17


For many o the Vietnamese working at this company, their expectations didnt go ar past Level 2 whereas those

Australians who had enjoyed Levels 1 and 2 or their whole lives were seeking the satisaction o needs at Levels 3 and 4.

Although Taylor never worked directly in the industry, his methods or improving productivity were embraced by

the fedgling automobile industry in particularly by Ford36. With the development o perect interchangeability o

component parts - that obviated the need to le and t each component at the assembly stage - and the development

o the moving assembly line in 1913, the task cycle or the average Ford assembler was reduced rom 514 to 1.14

minutes. Productivity increased dramatically and Fords Model T came to epitomise the concept o a virtuous circle.

As productivity increased, the cars became cheaper to build so they were oered or less which stimulated sales

that led to increased production and greater economies o scale and lower prices and greater sales and so on. But

what o the Ford workers? A 1915 survey at their Highland Park site revealed that most o the 7000 assemblerswere either rom the arm or recent immigrants. Over 50 dierent languages were spoken and many could not

speak English at all. The gains in productivity were achieved by taking the concept o division o labour to its ultimate

extreme. The tasks perormed by the assemblers were so simple attach a wheel or place nuts on bolts that

they could be explained in sign language i necessary and were so repetitive that assemblers became highly procient

in doing them. It might have been stultiyingly boring but it met the rst two levels o Maslows Hierarchy o

Needs. However, such was the nature o the work and the mediocre pay o $2.38 or a nine hour day that high sta

turnover became a very serious problem. Despite a program o bonuses, the establishment o a medical clinic and

the provision o playing elds and playgrounds or the amilies o workers, the issue persisted. Fords response to

the problem was telling. Faced with a choice between tackling the issue o work practices or low wages, Ford opted

or the latter and on 5th January, 1914, he announced a new minimum wage o $5.00 per day and a prot sharing

plan. Despite opposition rom shareholders and other industrialists who elt that a ruinous precedent was being

established, Ford was convinced that retaining more employees would lower production costs and that a happier

workorce would result in greater productivity. He was right. Ford doubled their prot rom $30 million in 1914 to

$60 million in 1916 and Ford pronounced that his decision to more than double wages or an eight hour day was one

o the nest cost-cutting moves we ever made.

Then in the 1920s came Elton Mayo and the Hawthorne Experiments which revealed the signicance o human

relations in organisational behaviour and how productivity could be enhanced i employers sought to satisy needs

at Levels 3 and 4. Another and in some ways even more instructive experiment was that o a painting operation

at a toy actory37. In this operation, eight girls sat in a line with a chain o hooks moving in ront o them at a

predetermined speed into a long horizontal drying oven. The girls job was to paint a toy and then hang it on a hook

beore it passed out o reach. Problems were encountered during the training period as the girls learned their roles

more slowly than anticipated and hooks were entering the oven without a toy attached to them.

In a general discussion on working conditions, the girls asked i t hey could be responsible or setting the speed o the

hook line. Reluctantly and with considerable misgivings, the engineers agreed to install a three speed control low,

medium and high. The girls themselves decided on the daily pattern. Ater a week or so o experimentation, the

pattern adopted was as ollows. Medium speed or the rst hal hour o the day was ollowed by two and a hal hours

36 The Machine That Changed The World by James P Womack, Daniel T Jones & Daniel Roos. Published by Macmillan Publishing

Company 1990

37 This story is related in Money and Motivation by William Foote Whyte et al, published by Harper & Row 1955

at maximum speed, low speed or hal an hour beore and ater lunch beore a period o high spe

minutes beore knock-o time when the line was slowed to medium. Ater three weeks the girl

toys was 30% 50% above the level projected by the engineers and they were earning more than

in other parts o the plant. The inequity in compensation caused growing riction that was only

o the line was repossessed by the engineers and returned to its original status. Within the mon

quit to be ollowed by the oreman a ew months later. It would be nice to report that managem

sourced the painting to the girls that resigned but there is no record o what happened to them

Elton Mayos work was ollowed by that o Eric Trist and Fred Emery at the Tavistock Institute i

advanced the theory o Socio/Technical Systems, and Douglas McGregor in his amous work T

Enterprise published in 1960. At the same time, in 1959, Frederick Herzberg published his boto Work where he introduced the notion o satisers that he called hygiene actors - an

and once again, one can see the connection between these two sets o actors and Maslows Hi

According to Herzbergs ndings, pay, benets and working conditions do not motivate. As He

only dissatisy i inadequate. The Motivators are recognition, achievement and responsibility.

Fred Emery, ater working with Eric Trist at the Tavistock Institute or many years, returned to

and took up a post at the Australian National University in Canberra and rened Herzbergs co

and satisers. He came up with a list o twelve actors as ollows:

Esc Ssfes bsc cs epe

Fair & adequate pay

Job security

Benets

Saety

Health

Due Process

isc ms cs hh jb ssc (& eee)

Variety & Challenge

Headroom or decision-making

Feedback & learning

Mutual support & respect

Wholeness & meaning

Room to grow & develop

The research o Emery and others demonstrated that these two sets o actors both needed to

and job satisaction were to reach high levels. One set could not compensate or the other.

It is interesting to note in passing that the extrinsic satisers are what unions have always ough

employers - or the more enlightened o them have concentrated on the intrinsic motivators

competitive edge

IMPLEMENTATION EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT


14/17


Emery also concluded that the rst three intrinsic motivators had to be optimised or the individual. I recall a tour

o a major manuacturing plant operated by my rst employer where we watched one operative making up fat packs

o cardboard boxes all day long. I asked him whether he ever got bored d oing this or eight hours a day, ve days a

week. Oh, no was the reply, I make up dierent sizes! That was orty years ago I wonder i they have anyone

doing his job today?

Empowerment is the modern term or headroom or decision-making. Some years ago, General Motors Holden,

the GM subsidiary in Australia, generated a lot o publicity by its directive that any worker at its Adelaide plant was

to stop the assembly line i a ault needed to be rectied. It represented one small part o Holdens adoption o

the principles o Lean Production with its emphasis on building good quality into the product rather than inspecting

poor quality out. Prior to this announcement, stopping the assembly line or anything less than an industrialaccident would have been a job threatening action. Contrary to what might have been anticipated, the assembly line

continued to fow with very ew interruptions. Armed with the knowledge that an operative urther down the line

might stop it to correct a ault that could be attributed directly to their workmanship, operatives were ar more

accountable or the quality o their work. It was one thing or a remote inspector to nd a ault, quite another when

one was shown up by a ellow operator. Rat her than just accepting issues o access to the vehicle under construction

that might contribute to sub-standard installation o component parts, the operatives now had every reason to own

the problem and be involved in its solution.

Lean Production has its genesis in an earlier movement Total Quality Control or TQC pioneered by the American

Dr W Edwards Deming38. It was Deming who played a major role in the revitalisation o the Japanese manuacturing

sector ater its devast ation in World War 2. Ironically, Deming remained virtually unknown in his homeland until

he eatured in a television documentary on NBC entitled I Japan Can .. Why Cant We? It was aired in 1980 by

which time Deming was also in his 80 th year. Contrary to perhaps popular belie, Statistical Quality Control, used

to purge product o deects caused by inconsistency o process, was only one aspect o Demings crusade or zero

deects production. Not only did he believe that Statistical Quality Control should be in the hands o the operatives

(Statistical Operator Control) but that a prerequisite to them taking on this responsibility was a high degree o

Employee Involvement which we now know as Epee Eee. Total Quality Control gradually

morphed into Total Quality Management and Deming encapsulated his philosophy in his Fourteen Points. What is

highly signicant about Demings Fourteen Points is that allo them relate to the behaviour and attitudes o people.

In particular, Point 7 calls or supervisors to lead by acting as coaches and mentors; Point 8 emphasises the need to

drive out ear o change and Point 9 demands the break down o barriers between workgroups or departments so

that they do not compete with one another but cooperate.

It would be an impossible task to list all the organisations that have embraced the Deming Management Method but I

suspect that o all those that have done so, only a small percentage have truly realised the benets. One organisation

that did was Harley-Davidson which staged a Lazarus-like revival in the 1980s. Although its survival was aided by

the US government placing a temporary but punitive import duty on Japanese motorbikes with an engine capacity o

700cc or above, its uture prosperity was largely due to its adoption o Demings management methods, in particular,

his insistence on the involvement o employees in the re-design o the assembly lines and shop foors. Tom Gelb,

38 For a highly readable account o Demings work and philosophy, see The Deming Management Method by Mary Walton, published

by Mercury Books Division o W H Allen & Co Plc 1989

Harleys senior vice-president o operations reported that no changes were implemented until

understood and accepted that change. Like their counterparts on the GM-Holden assembly li

employees had a substantial stake in the decisions that would aect their company and their ut

Empowerment is particularly benecial in service industries where many employees have direct

customers. Nordstrom, the US up-market department store became amous or its Employee

single 125mm X 200mm grey sheet consisting o 75 words as ollows:

Welcome to Nordstrom

Were glad to have you with our company. Our number one goal is to provide outstanding cusyour personal and proessional goals high. We have great confdence in your ability to achieve

Nordstrom Rules: Rule No. 1: Use good judgement in all situations. There will b

Please eel ree to ask your department manager, store manager, or division general manager

time.

One can imagine that many new employees would be daunted by such a challenging directive be

too much headroom or decision-making. Nordstrom may have come to the same realisation a

are now provided with this card and a ull handbook o other more specic rules and legal regu

consumers, we all know the rustrations that arise when we get transerred rom person to per

resolve what we thought was a straightorward issue.

At rst sight one might eel that no one can receive too much eedback or have too much varie

understand why Emery believed that these two actors needed to be optimised or the individua

appreciate the role o multi-skilling in Emerys view o job re-design. Emery saw that multi-skill

providing the fexibility and innovation required to deal with rapidly changing markets, technolo

jobs and even liestyles. He recognised, however, that some people have a greater need or sup

and a lesser need or job variety than others. In this context, it is worth recounting the experie

Weisbord as he set up multi-disciplined order-processing teams in the amily mail-order busines

Teamwork). The great majority o the 25 person workorce came to enjoy the job-enrichment

that multi-skilling gave them. However there was one employee, Sydney, who worked in shippi

to Weisbord, a world-class miracle o ecient distribution but Sydney had no desire whatsoev

expert at anything else nor was he interested in being actively engaged in work design. In much

cardboard box maker was content to make up cartons, Sydney was content to pack and despat

was pointed out to him that he could not expect to be promoted i he conned his skills and ex

operation, he responded by saying that he didnt want any more responsibility and had already a

he wanted to. Weisbord thought that he would win him over when Sydney saw what was happ

workers but he never did. Even Sydney the shipper taught me something important: every mhas its limits; not one o them ts everybody



15/17


In contrast, Emery was o the view that no one can have too much o the second trio o intrinsic motivators. Providing

support and treating ones employees with respect is straight rom McGregors Theory Y whilst the need or wholeness

and meaning has already been illustrated by Jan Carlzons parable o the two stone cutters. As or room to grow, I think

Emery had his own caree r much in mind. Born in Narrogin in Southern Weste rn Australia in 1925 as the son o a drover

and shearer, Emery let school as Top Pupil o Fremantle Boys High when aged only ourteen. Studying at night school,

Emery received his rst degree in science rom the University o Western Australia in 1946 and went on to obtain his

PhD at Melbourne University in 1953. UNESCO research ellow, pioneer o Socio-Technical Systems, originator o the

Search Conerence, prolic author and writer, Emery believed passionately that there was a viable alternative to the

hierarchical, autocratic, initiative suppressing organisation that had developed in the latter hal o the 20th Century.

O the extrinsic satisers that Emery stipulated should be present the one most under attack in the modern world isjob security. There is no doubt that the lack o job security is a major demotivator. It used to be that providing one

perormed, job security was not an issue. Nowadays, even those who do perorm are under threat o being made

redundant though a restructuring, the introduction o a new IT system, an arbitrary reduction in the head count or

as the consequence o a merger or out-sourcing policy or the loss o a major account none o which have any direct

connection to an employees perormance.

Epee Eee is heavily infuenced by the qualities o leadership displayed by ones supervisor or manager.

The ollowing insight is based on an article that was posted on my web site under the title o The Problems o

Disengagement

I have always maintained that as Automation and Inormation Technology results in ewer people being employed

in a particular organisation, the more important the latter become. They are the primary source o competitive

advantage. Given their value, one would have thought that every eort would be made to nurture and motivate

them by creating a workplace culture that resulted in high job satisaction and to use the word o the moment

high levels o engagement.

I dont see this happening and recent studies on this issue have shown that less than 30% o employees are engaged

with the organisation or which they work.39

I believe that the problem lies with management senior management.

It is said that people join companies and leave managers. Given the organisations public persona and the new

recruits understanding o the role that he or she is being asked to play, expectations are high on joining their

new employer. Over time they become disillusioned as their eorts are met with increas ing levels o indierence.

Eventually they leave either o their own volition or because they are deemed superfuous to requirements.

Geraldine Doogue, the Australian TV presenter, journalist, speaker and author once said that she would believe

in equality between the sexes when there are as many incompetent women in positions o authority as there are

incompetent men. And there are a lot o incompetent men.

39 One o the best known polls was that conducted by the Gallup Organisation and published in the Gallup Management Journal in their

October 2006 edition. Based on phone interviews with a representative sam ple o US workers aged 18 or above, their research showed that

29% o respondents were engaged, 56% were not engaged and 17% were actively dis-engaged.

My theory is that incompetent people promote incompetent people because they dont eel thr

perchance, a competent one or two slip through the screen, eventually they either leave o their

destined to all victims o restructures and the like.

I am a believer in the Peter Principle that Dr Laurence Peter ormulated in his book40 o the sam

hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to his or her level o incompetence. My observation i

initially maniests itsel in the management o people rather than in the management o the busi

in an unwillingness to listen to ones subordinates in the belie that to act on any o their recomm

a lack o condence in ones own judgement Im a manager now, its my job to make decisions

made as a consequence and our manager, rather than admit that mistakes have been made and

with his or her subordinates, becomes more isolated and deensive. Beore long, the subordinacompetent ones, are seen as threats to our managers position and authority.

Some time back, a personal riend o ours introduced me to an impressive manager.

Our riend worked or him and suggested that I met with him as she thought that he might be in

Towards Ten Thousand our Workgroup Perormance Accelerator. Highly qualied, he spok

conerences but above all, he was well respected by his sta. In short, he was a leader. Then a

was told that he had been made redundant. No reason was given. He suspects that his boss h

him. Why? Because he was a lot more competent than his boss.

David Olgilvy, ounder o the advertising agency bearing his name, used to give every newly pro

a Russian matryoshka doll. Inside the smallest one, the manager would nd the ollowing mess

hires people who are smaller than we are, we shall become a company o dwars. But i each o

are bigger than we are, we shall become a company o giants.

It takes courage and leadership to hire people who are bigger than we are.

So many studies have been conducted on the issue o what motivates employees and the results

consistent. I believe the apparent inconsistency is due to the context o the employees workp

speaking, employees at Google41 will attach greater signicance to Emerys motivators because

or granted. Google sees that its ability to engage its employees is crucial to its succ ess becaus

engagement inspire greater discretionary eort. In Googles case, the Company has institutio

eort. Taking the precedent established at 3M and at Stanord University where the two oun

Page and Sergey Brin, rst started their research on Internet search engines, Google engineers

spend one day a week or 20% o their time working on ideas and concepts that interest them.

eort the pursuit o ideas, the solving o problems at the employees own initiative that Goo

its competitive edge in innovation. It is also, incidentally, an extreme example o head-room o

In contrast, employees who have highly repetitive jobs in a actory environment or example ma

emphasis on good wages and a sae work environment. However, it is unlikely that provision o

40 The Peter Principle why things always go wrong by Dr Lawrence Peter & Raymond Hull, published by W

41 The Google Story by David Vise & Mark Malseed, published by Random House Inc.2008



16/17


will result in greater discretionary eort. It is tempting, thereore, or employers o the latter to assume that a)

they should ocus on the satisers and b) that there is little to be gained by the employer or encouraging greater

discretionary eort rom their employees.

When my company conducts Customer Feedback Surveys, one o the phrases used by customers to describe

suppliers whose perormance is exemplary is that they are low maintenance suppliers. I am sure that this is a phrase

that many employers would like to use o their employees they are low maintenance. They start and nish work

on time, they dont complain, they just get on and do their jobs. They are paid the award rate, receive the required

benets the employer abides by the OHS regulations, and policies and procedures have been ormulated and orm

part o the Employees Handbook. As or job security, it does make the job o retrenching them a little less dist urbing

i they are not on amiliar terms with their supervisors and managers. This sort o thinking is refected in the studymade by K A Kovach42 entitled What motivates employees? Workers and Supervisors give dierent answers. In

the study, supervisors were asked to rate 10 actors in the order in which they believed they motivated their

employees. Their employees were then asked to rank the same actors. The two sets o results were as ollows:

Factors

How supervisors ranked

what they thought motivated

their workers

How workers ranked what

they considered motivated

them

Good wages 1 5

Job security 2 4

Possibility for promotion 3 7

Good working conditions 4 9

Interesting work 5 6

Loyalty of management toworkers 6 8

Tactful discipline 7 10

Appreciation for good work 8 1

Help with personal problems 9 3

Feeling in on things 10 2

From the above, one can discern three groupings those actors where the supervisors and workers approximately

agreed on the rankings; those that the supervisors rated much higher than the workers and, lastly, those that the

workers rated more highly than the supervisors.

Both parties were in approximate agreement in their ranking o job security, interesting work and loyalty o

management to workers. Note how job security was ranked highly by both supervisors (2) and workers (4). This

study was in 1987. Is job security greater or less today? Im sure its the latter.

42 Kovach K A What motivates employees? Workers and Supervisors give dierent answers, published in Business Horizons,

Volume 30 No.5 September/October1987

The second group that the supervisors ranked higher than the workers comprises good wages (

promotion (3 v 7), good working conditions (4 v 9) and tactul discipline (7 v 10).

The key motivators rom the workers perspective were appreciation or good work (1 v 8), ee

(2 v 10) and help with personal problems (3 v 9). Now workers who want to be appreciated o

kept in the picture on the organisations current perormance and uture plans and eel sucient

in their supervisors to approach them or help with personal problems are not low maintenan

rom managements perspective, is it worth the investment in time and resources to engage em

terms, particularly when job security cannot be guaranteed especially i management is not co

o greater discretionary eort will oer an acceptable return.

On the issue o showing appreciation or good work, I remember having dinner with my Gene

rather taken aback when he proclaimed that he knew better than anyone whether he had done

thereore had no need o third party acknowledgement. Neither did he practice MBWA. I thin

surprised by the standing in which he was held by the great majority o his sta.

The problem is that it is hard to put a value on greater discretionary eort. I was recently tal

term sta member at a hospital and she was contr asting the present day culture with that o t

lunchbreaks are, o course, staggered so there is always sta on the ward. In the old days, we w

other nursing sta when we were going to lunch and we would tell our patients too. So i any o

example, needed to use the buzzer, my ellow nurses knew that I wasnt there and the patient w

someone other than mysel to come to their aid. Not only was this good teamwork which kep

nursing sta high but the patients sensed this eeling o camaraderie and it rubbed o on their w

I was administering to another nurses patient, I always wanted to provide the very best care an

I knew that the other nurses would do that or my patients i I was taking a break. Nowadays, t

simply knock o when their lunchbreaks are due. They are under so much pressure they hav

is more paper work there are too many part-timers its hard enough to do what you have to

little extra.

How do you put a value on greater discretionary eort that results rom an employees emot

the organisation that employs them?

The nal irony in the case o this nursing anecdote is that one o the hospitals key perormance

patient throughput. However, there is a substantial body o evidence to suggest that the healin

emotional as physical and hence the patients recovery time may be compromised by the work

in the name o eciency.

My conclusion is that there are three, rather than two, sets o actors that need to be present t

environment that results in the great majority o employees being engaged. Firstly, there are th

species or the hygiene actors that Hertzberg wrote about. Their presence does not motivatde-motivates. And the key one is job security. Rather than list all the motivators together, my

should be divided into two environmental motivators and personal motivators. Thus the na

ollows:



17/17


Satisfers Environmental

motivators

Personal motivators

Job security Clear goals & objectives Appreciation for good work

Fair & adequate pay Clear st ra teg ies for achieving

them

Variety & challenge

interesting work

Benefts Feeling in on things

wholeness & meaning

Opportunity for learning &

growing

Safety Good working conditions Mutual support & respect

Health A sense of community

teams & teamwork

Headroom for decision-

making

Due process Knowledge, experience &

opinions valued at all levels

of the organisation

Good leadership at

supervisor/manager level

Good leadership at the top Possibility for promotion

Per fo rmance cul tu re Good Micro-commun icati on

Good Macro-communication

When one considers the above listing, it is perhaps not surprising that so ew organisations can claim a majority o

engaged employees.

Does it matter?

According to the Epee Eee poll, carried out by the Gallup Organisation and reerred to earlier, it

does. Gallup identied three types o employees.

Ee employees work with passion and eel a proound connection to the company. They drive innovation and

move the company orward

n ee employees are essentially checked-out. Theyre sleepwalking through their workday, putting

time but not energy and passion into their work

ace see employees arent just unhappy at work; theyre busyacting out their unhappiness. Every day,

these workers undermine what their engaged co-workers accomplish

Gallup ound that 71% o workers were either not engaged (56%) or actively disengaged (15%) w

the engaged category. When asked whether their current job brings out (their) most creative

engaged employees agreed with this statement versus 3% o the actively disengaged group. Like

service. 89% o engaged employees agreed that at work, I know where to go with an idea to i

service compared with only 16% o actively disengaged employees. Gallups research also con

between employee engagement and customer engagement. Engaged employees demonstrated

to change or to learn and grow. In response to the statement I have grown in my ability to p

our customers, 85% o engaged employees strongly agreed with this statement compared to o

disengaged. The research by Gallup and others supports what our intuition tells us that engage

vital role in turning plans into reality.

The overall conclusion rom the oregoing is that a) Epee Eee is the responsibi

not employees and b) that the benets that accrue rom an engaged workorce are well worth

to engage them. The point is best summarised by the motivational speaker who asked his senio

audience: How many people here have dead wood in their organisation? When three quarte

put their hands up, he asked another question: Did you hire them that way or did you make t

Peters put it another way. The average person who works at the ront line o your organisatio

thoughtul, caring, dynamic, energetic, and creative except or the 8 hours a day they work o

clients, passengers, patients, our perceptions o organisations, large and small, are ormed by th

employees that we come into contact with. Jan Carlzon, the ormer head o Scandinavian Airlin

called his book Moments o Truth and explained the term as ollows:

Last year, each o our 10 million customers came into contact with approximately fve SAS em

contact lasted an average o 15 seconds each time. Thus SAS is created 50 million times a

time. These 50 million moments o truth are the moments that ultimately determine wheth

ail as a company. They are the moments when we must prove to our customers that SAS is t

Refecting Emerys motivational actor headroom or decision-making Carlzon went on to s

without inormation cannot take responsibility: an individual who is given inormation cannot he

responsibility.

Epee Eee completes the omElEttE o key implementation actors that get

rolling. There is one urther actor to consider Communication. Eective Communication is

System o any organisation. I it is damaged, paralysis is the result. In my experience, employee

about poor communication than any other actor communication at both a macro and micro

Wheel model, Communication is the lubrication that keeps the wheel spinning on its axle.

Communication is the good oil.


BE Haines Execution to Die For

Documents

Transcript of BE Haines Execution to Die For