Influencers’ Masterclass – Employee engagement round table · Influencers’ Masterclass –...

Influencers’ Masterclass – Employee engagement round tableOctober 2015

129080 Oracle Influencer masterclass Overview Brochure.indd 1 10/11/2015 10:12

2

CONTENTS

3 Introduction4 Attendees5 What is engagement?6 The importance of leadership7 The changing world of work8 The changing nature of performance management9 The true role of HR10 What does this mean for organisational design?11 How will this impact our customers?


3

Introduction

In September 2015, Oracle launched ‘Simply Talent: A Western European Perspective’, our report into the subject of employee engagement. The study provided a number of insights into what drives employee engagement and – just as importantly – what stands in its way. To get this insight, Oracle went straight to the greatest authority on the subject – employees themselves.

In total, we polled over 1,500 employees working for large organizations across Europe: in the UK, France, Germany, Benelux and the Nordics, with questions ranging from how engagement affects peoples’ work performance, to their opinion of their employers, and what their companies can do to make them feel more engaged.

To discuss the findings of the survey in-depth, on 1st October 2015 Oracle invited a specially selected panel to its Influencers’ Masterclass roundtable. In particular there were five key findings from the study that we wanted to examine:

1. Employees believe that their businesses benefit when they are engaged – they are more productive, for example, or they deliver a superior customer service

2. When it comes to influencing employee engagement, peers and immediate line managers are the most effective

3. Employees say that recognition for great work, the opportunity to contribute to the business and the availability of projects outside of their usual remit are key to making them feel engaged

4. HR as a practice is falling short on delivering proactive management, and in the regularity and quality of feedback given to employees

5. HR needs to stand up and claim responsibility for driving employee engagement and the company culture. The study shows that HR is currently not influential in these areas; that it sits in the background and needs to contribute more

The debates around these important topics were wide ranging and lively and once again underscored just how important the topic of employee engagement has become to the successful running of modern enterprise.

What follows is a summary of the main points covered during the discussion, which I hope will not only act as an aide memoir but will also inspire further thought around this important topic.

I would like to thank all those who attended the Masterclass and I hope you enjoy the read.

- Andy Campbell, HCM Strategy Director at Oracle


4

Attendees

Martin Beecroft Home OfficeNita Clarke Engage for SuccessJo Dodds Engage for SuccessAndrea Eccles City HR AssociationPeter Flade GallupJonny Gifford CIPDFaye Holland CofinitiveSharon Olivier Ashridge Management CollegeSam Sales Cambridge Interim HRMarc Shiels RBS

Andy Campbell OracleRichard Cheeseman OracleSarah Henry OracleFiona McLean Oracle


5

What is engagement?

A key theme of the Simply Talent research was the role of engagement, in particular who and what encourages engagement among employees. The conversation started with an interesting observation that the term ‘engagement’ had not been explicitly defined in the survey. This was different from other studies that have given a specific interpretation. It was suggested that by not defining it, employees have an intuitive sense of what engagement means and that had a more technical definition been given some of the results might have been different. For example, the research concluded that peers were the most significant influence upon the engagement of employees, but this might not have been the case if the question had been framed differently.

Peers and work colleagues have always had a strong influence on employee engagement at work, while line managers are often seen as the bad guys, so, in reality, the findings of the research are not that surprising. Marc Shiels pointed out that while colleagues encourage resilience within fellow peers, supported by the community of the peer group, the technology they use etc, ultimately it is the employer – the person that pays the salary and gives recognition – that influences employees most.


6

The importance of leadership

The subject of leadership style, and specifically, the change in style was raised by Sharon Olivier. She felt that as organisations transition from an ego to an eco-approach, employees and management now view engagement and feedback more holistically. In an engaged environment, the role of peers becomes crucial and the level of trust increases.

There was some discussion as to whether poor management hinders or boosts friendship, trust and engagement and the resulting success or failure of those teams. Martin Beecroft felt that the desire for more autonomy has encouraged employees to look to their colleagues for support but that they are apathetic when it comes to authoritative figures dictating to them.

Andrea Eccles suggested that as the cultural approach to organisations changes, there is a need for different leadership styles. While traditionally employees were expected to leave their personalities at the door, this is no longer true. Culture and values are recognised as major drivers of individual behaviour and this, in turn, is clearly aligned to performance values. New types of leaders are evolving who may not have particular areas of expertise, but instead take a more holistic approach to engaging with and managing their teams.

This point was emphasised further by Sam Sales who intimated that management is expected to know more about their employees these days – beyond their CV and their role in the business. She called on employers to encourage employees to create their own groups either virtually or in-person based on their values or interests, something that many tech firms are already promoting. It was agreed however that there is still a generation of leaders that remain uncomfortable with ‘getting to know’ their workforce, which is particularly at odds with the perspective of the millennial generation’s that are now some prominent in the workforce.

“As the cultural approaches to organisations change, there is a need for different leadership styles”

Andrea Eccles


7

“Millenials entering the workplace have left an educational environment that is collaborative and disparate...modern workplaces will have to follow this trend”

Faye Holland

The changing world of work

Keeping with this theme of an emerging workforce with very different expectations and challenges, there was agreement that flexible working is ushering in some huge changes. In dispersed workforce communities, the dynamics around forming relationships and an ‘always-on’ approach to work are very different from a generation ago. While some organisations may see the potential cost savings, others are concerned with the ability to form strong cohesive teams in virtual environments. There was, however, agreement that this comes down to individuals and how organisations encourage flexible working conditions, team engagement and facilitation of communities.

Jonny Gifford raised the point that while some may adapt their working hours in this new flexible environment, others will feel obligated to work longer hours. He highlighted the point raised in the Simply Talent study that employees will work longer hours for their organisation if they feel engaged, indicating this may be seen as an incentive for some organisations to promote engagement.

To this point, Andy Campbell inferred that the pervasive nature of technology has blurred the traditional lines between work and play, on and off. He questioned whether employers have a responsibility to provide a work environment that employees actually enjoy in order to remain competitive in attracting and retaining talent. Faye Holland agreed that the technology promotes engagement, but it comes down to how organisations treat employees as individuals. The millennials entering the workplace have left an educational environment that is collaborative and disparate, but one in which likeminded people will form communities to work on subjects that interest them. There is an expectation that modern workplaces will have to follow this trend.


8

The changing nature of performance management

Nita Clarke raised the issue that too many HR systems simply measure inputs rather than outcomes. This focus requires more than just a cultural change but a mechanism for establishing different ways of measuring success, particularly when evaluating individuals, rather than a team or a department.

This led to a discussion on the changing nature of performance management, in line with a belief that the traditional approach to appraisals has broken down. Marc Shiels suggested that there needs to be a fundamental change in company culture, if organisations are to successfully re-evaluate the process. Andrea Eccles proposed that performance management has become rather polarised. Some organisations are moving to more regular, informal, 360 degree feedback, ‘check ins’ and a goals based approach to achievement. Alternatively, other organisations, particularly those in highly regulated environments continue to look at performance management in terms of deliverables and objectives, which are aligned with traditional systems, often because the outcomes are used to drive other processes such as compensation.

This raised the subject of responsibility for performance management. Jo Dodds suggested that if leaders neither have the capability, nor incentive to change, then altering the process is irrelevant. Nita Clarke concurred with this emphasising the destructive effects of simply servicing a tick box system that dehumanises and mechanises the process. The need is to focus on effective teamwork and appraisals that enable individuals to understand their strengths and weaknesses and help them develop.

The question remains how to achieve such changes and there was widespread agreement that if change is not embedded in the culture, it is very difficult to alter behaviour and process.

“If leaders neither have the capability, not incentive to change, then altering the process is irrelevant”

Jo Dodds


9

The true role of HR

It is here that HR should come into its own. It has an obligation to be an enabler of support for managers, putting initiatives and systems at the disposal of managers and employees. Agreeing with this point, Peter Flade suggested that the Simply Talent study should not say that HR should own engagement – this is the kiss of death and the study phases this incorrectly. HR should be responsible for acting as an enabler and facilitator, but the ultimate ‘owner’ of engagement should actually reside in the business.

Martin Beecroft claimed that too many HR functions relate their role to processes and focus their time and energies on implementing and improving systems that support these processes rather than on the business impact that they actually deliver. This can lead to a lack of clarity from users as to what systems should actually deliver and the impact on employees. Occasionally there is a mismatch between the delivered systems and the business realities and obligations of a particular role. There was broad agreement that HR needs to step away from a complete focus on process and policy. The question that remained was how to achieve this through changing roles and systems, versus the impact of changing organisational culture.

While there was agreement that employees naturally understand the requirements of their companies and the nature and limitations of their individual roles, what is not accepted is management’s lack of understanding in relation to these roles.

This implies that HR has lost competency in employee relations; that it has become the thought-police rather than a people function. This in turn leads to the question: who is looking after people now? For example, many organisations are implementing wellbeing programmes to care for individuals and meet the more human and social aspect of caring for employees. However, the majority of these are being done through stand alone initiatives rather than as part of an integrated engagement and well being strategy.

Peter Flade commented that if management does not truly connect with the purpose of well being, then any initiative is likely to be at best a distraction or at worst, a waste of money. Companies need to go back to basics, set expectations, engage employees and get recognition for the work entailed. This is hard to get this right and resilience is key.

This approach emphasises that engagement is still initiated through consultancy and programmes, but that there remains a lack of clarity as to what engagement actually is, observed Sharon Olivier. It should be about purpose and aligning people to where the organisation is going. Engagement needs to be self-organised, enabling people to manage themselves and give feedback as a driver to changing leadership.


10

What does this mean for organisational design?

The implication here is that rules of how to work have not changed, suggested Jo Dodds, and that more needs to be done to educate organisations, particularly sizable ones, on how to change.

Nita Clarke advised that businesses need to do more to understand their organisations and recognise strengths and weaknesses before it is possible to know where to start any change.

The key to change is involving employees at the beginning of the process to help them not only engage and understand the purpose of change but to help them define that process as well. Senior management must take responsibility for leading change and HR should support this, but if they are simply dictating change, employees are less likely to engage with it. Communication is critical and there’s a need to change the language. Mark Shiels called for HR to become the people or culture department – to revise the focus to something that more accurately meets business goals and objectives.

Ultimately, the guiding principle has to be that people are the greatest assets of any business, but if senior management don’t appreciate and believe this, then it negates the principle.

Andy Campbell observed that when it works, HR provides high-level connectivity between the values of the organisation that inspire and drive people and the mechanisms for stimulating engagement and enthusiasm. The goal is to achieve congruence between the two using technology and business process. HR needs to put in place the rules and framework to ensure that they get connectivity right and manage this from top to bottom. This is not about putting in place tight controls; this is much more about education, enabling management to become better leaders.


11

How will this impact on our customers and other outcomes?

The subject of ‘the customer perspective’ was raised and there was common consensus about a clear correlation between best practice and customer service/output. HR has a role in educating businesses to support this alignment, which ultimately is about bringing money into the business. RBS was upheld as an example of an organisation where such initiatives have been successful in ‘enabling better business’.

The conversation returned finally to the topic of engagement, specifically the rhetoric of engagement and HR’s role in owning this, reiterating the definition of engagement being a shared purpose, going the extra mile, mastering autonomy etc. Yet, claimed Jonny Gifford, there still isn’t clarity on how organisations talk about employee engagement. Many will refer to employee management functions and increasing engagement metrics, but what does this mean? On its own, engagement does not work and organisations need to move towards a multi-faceted approach to definition and reporting. Sam Sales concurred that traditional single metric reporting is out of context and lacks meaning. Instead, there is a requirement to look at individual components within a holistic model.

Looking forward, organisations are looking at people metrics more. There is an increasing desire, and not necessarily from within the HR industry, to understand ‘people health’ – how organisations treat people and performance. Clarity is needed on the elements and metrics that need to be assessed to provide a credible response to this.

If engagement is indeed a concept that is intuitively difficult to define, perhaps HR should focus on enabling business performance, rather than promoting engagement. Make performance management a collective target to encourage individuals to innovate, collaborate and support each other. After all, adaption and change will come from your employees rather than your processes.


Influencers’ Masterclass – Employee engagement round table · Influencers’ Masterclass –...

Documents

Transcript of Influencers’ Masterclass – Employee engagement round table · Influencers’ Masterclass –...