 |
Loyalty in the Workplace By Chris Woolard Chris Woolard, Walker's employee loyalty expert shares his thoughts on all things related to employees and the workplace. |
My wife is a big Oprah fan, me, not so much. But she had a show last week talking to two company executives who participated in the new show "Undercover Boss". Thanks to the beauty of DVR, she recorded the episode as she thought I would be interested in it.
She was right, which is not uncommon (she reads my blog). The two Presidents were from Waste Management and 7-11. They took on an alternate persona and had to do some of the lowest level jobs in their respective organizations.
For example, the president of Waste Management had to clean a Porta Potty, collect trash that was blowing from a landfill, remove cardboard from a conveyor belt, work on a trash truck, and work at a weigh station. He failed miserably at all of these jobs, in fact, he actually was fired from collecting trash. The CEO for 7-11, had to work the night shift and make coffee, clean the store, and fill donoughts. He also rode on a delivery truck and made deliveries all night.
Both said repeatedly this gave them an entirely different perspective on running their company and they made changes to how their companies were run. As an example, there was a lady driving the trash truck who had to use the bathroom in a coffee can. It never occurred to the president that this is a problem. He is now working to re-route all of his trucks so there are stops along the way where they can use the restroom.
So what can we learn from this? Despite Senior Leaders best efforts to understand their employees, they usually don't. Both of these Presidents seemed like great, caring individuals who had tried to do what was best for their employees. However, this gave them a different perspective. So am I saying all presidents should do this? Well yes, but we all know that will never happen. What leaders should do is try very hard to keep a very close pulse on its employees, the challenges they are facing, and suggestions for improvement. Many of these employees had great ideas to make the company better. An employee survey is a great way to gain this perspective. Another idea is to have regular meetings with different employees at different levels to solicit feedback. If leaders would take the time to really understand their employees, maybe employee loyalty would be higher than one-third of the employees being loyal to the organization.
She was right, which is not uncommon (she reads my blog). The two Presidents were from Waste Management and 7-11. They took on an alternate persona and had to do some of the lowest level jobs in their respective organizations.
For example, the president of Waste Management had to clean a Porta Potty, collect trash that was blowing from a landfill, remove cardboard from a conveyor belt, work on a trash truck, and work at a weigh station. He failed miserably at all of these jobs, in fact, he actually was fired from collecting trash. The CEO for 7-11, had to work the night shift and make coffee, clean the store, and fill donoughts. He also rode on a delivery truck and made deliveries all night.
Both said repeatedly this gave them an entirely different perspective on running their company and they made changes to how their companies were run. As an example, there was a lady driving the trash truck who had to use the bathroom in a coffee can. It never occurred to the president that this is a problem. He is now working to re-route all of his trucks so there are stops along the way where they can use the restroom.
So what can we learn from this? Despite Senior Leaders best efforts to understand their employees, they usually don't. Both of these Presidents seemed like great, caring individuals who had tried to do what was best for their employees. However, this gave them a different perspective. So am I saying all presidents should do this? Well yes, but we all know that will never happen. What leaders should do is try very hard to keep a very close pulse on its employees, the challenges they are facing, and suggestions for improvement. Many of these employees had great ideas to make the company better. An employee survey is a great way to gain this perspective. Another idea is to have regular meetings with different employees at different levels to solicit feedback. If leaders would take the time to really understand their employees, maybe employee loyalty would be higher than one-third of the employees being loyal to the organization.
A colleague of mine just sent me a link to glassdoor.com. The site has typical job postings, but it also has reviews. So an employee can go on the site and write a review of the company. For fun, I looked up two of my clients. One only had 2 comments on there but they were pretty scathing ("they treat us like slave labor"). The other had over 75 reviews, none of which were real positive. I also looked up one of Walker's competitors, wow, the reviews were not good.
Now I recognize, the employees that take the time and effort to write a review are probably the ones most upset. However, does that invalidate their complaint? Also, we all know it does not matter if the complaint is valid, it just matters that potential candidates are reading it and gaining a negative perception of the company.
What can HR do with this info? First, they need to be aware this exists and it does not exist just at this site, there are groups on Facebook and LinkedIn for former employees to get together and complain about their company. Once they are aware of the complaints, they can decide if the complaint is valid. If the company has done an employee loyalty/engagement survey recently, did they hear some of the same themes? This would tell you the issue is greater than just a couple of whiny employees.
Second, look up competitors to see what the employees are saying. This may help create a strategic advantage.
Lastly, don't get too discouraged when reading these comments. Even companies that excel at employee loyalty still have employees that are not happy with the company. I have never seen a company with 100% Truly Loyal employees. All you can do is continue to do what you can to make the organziation a better place to work.
Now I recognize, the employees that take the time and effort to write a review are probably the ones most upset. However, does that invalidate their complaint? Also, we all know it does not matter if the complaint is valid, it just matters that potential candidates are reading it and gaining a negative perception of the company.
What can HR do with this info? First, they need to be aware this exists and it does not exist just at this site, there are groups on Facebook and LinkedIn for former employees to get together and complain about their company. Once they are aware of the complaints, they can decide if the complaint is valid. If the company has done an employee loyalty/engagement survey recently, did they hear some of the same themes? This would tell you the issue is greater than just a couple of whiny employees.
Second, look up competitors to see what the employees are saying. This may help create a strategic advantage.
Lastly, don't get too discouraged when reading these comments. Even companies that excel at employee loyalty still have employees that are not happy with the company. I have never seen a company with 100% Truly Loyal employees. All you can do is continue to do what you can to make the organziation a better place to work.
Given everything that is going on in the world today, it seems trivial to write a blog about Jay Leno and Conan O'Brien. And yes, let's face it people, this feud is trivial. However, a colleague sent me an article on the feud from an HR/Talent Management perspective. The article had some points way off base, but had a couple of good nuggets as well.
Let me start with a few points that when I read, I said to myself, is this really where we are from a business and societal standpoint?
-Comparing the late night feud with a Yankees pitcher is ridiculous. For starters, the pitcher's contract was up, the Yankees just chose to not re-sign. NBC has a contract with Jay and Conan, the two situations are not comparable.
-"Jay, Conan, and Hideki are each corporate assets who represent a revenue stream to their organization." I have been preaching for years that companies need to treat employees as an asset, their most important asset. By that I mean, they need to make sure they are managed correctly and treated like people. I did not mean that you view employees as an asset like a computer or a desk.
-"...the harsh truth is that it's not personal — it's just business. " This is a big pet peeve with me. Yes, it is just business but businesses are built on the backs of the employees. If you treat employees like this, the business will ultimately crumble. Try telling that to Conan right now? Or just tell anyone that has recently been laid off, sorry, it is just business, good luck feeding your family though. It is that short-sighted attitude that is a reason why employee loyalty remains extremely poor and employees are the least satisfied they have ever been in their jobs in the past 20 years.
-The author claims we are being naive if we believed NBC was actually going to keep their promise and let Conan keep the late night spot. Now I think the authors point here is the business landscape can change over time and thus it is difficult to make promises about future positions. However, when did believing and trusting in someone's word make one naive? Have we come to the point in society that I cannot trust anyone on their word? I recognize we need to be cautious and there are many out there who cannot be trusted (yes I am looking at you Lane Kiffin) but what happened to keeping ones word?
Now, I actually like his three points on talent management. I am not going to copy them here but those were decent business practices and you can go back to the article for those.
Maybe I am just a glass half-full kind of guy, but I believe people when they make a promise (until proven differently), I believe companies can be successful by showing they truly care about their employees, I believe if a company truly treats its employees as an important asset and providing training and development, career path, great work environment, etc. companies can and will outperform their competitors. Maybe I am the one being naive.
Just to note, if you want to read a great blog on this feud with a customer focus spin, check out the blog my colleague Melissa Meier wrote.
Let me start with a few points that when I read, I said to myself, is this really where we are from a business and societal standpoint?
-Comparing the late night feud with a Yankees pitcher is ridiculous. For starters, the pitcher's contract was up, the Yankees just chose to not re-sign. NBC has a contract with Jay and Conan, the two situations are not comparable.
-"Jay, Conan, and Hideki are each corporate assets who represent a revenue stream to their organization." I have been preaching for years that companies need to treat employees as an asset, their most important asset. By that I mean, they need to make sure they are managed correctly and treated like people. I did not mean that you view employees as an asset like a computer or a desk.
-"...the harsh truth is that it's not personal — it's just business. " This is a big pet peeve with me. Yes, it is just business but businesses are built on the backs of the employees. If you treat employees like this, the business will ultimately crumble. Try telling that to Conan right now? Or just tell anyone that has recently been laid off, sorry, it is just business, good luck feeding your family though. It is that short-sighted attitude that is a reason why employee loyalty remains extremely poor and employees are the least satisfied they have ever been in their jobs in the past 20 years.
-The author claims we are being naive if we believed NBC was actually going to keep their promise and let Conan keep the late night spot. Now I think the authors point here is the business landscape can change over time and thus it is difficult to make promises about future positions. However, when did believing and trusting in someone's word make one naive? Have we come to the point in society that I cannot trust anyone on their word? I recognize we need to be cautious and there are many out there who cannot be trusted (yes I am looking at you Lane Kiffin) but what happened to keeping ones word?
Now, I actually like his three points on talent management. I am not going to copy them here but those were decent business practices and you can go back to the article for those.
Maybe I am just a glass half-full kind of guy, but I believe people when they make a promise (until proven differently), I believe companies can be successful by showing they truly care about their employees, I believe if a company truly treats its employees as an important asset and providing training and development, career path, great work environment, etc. companies can and will outperform their competitors. Maybe I am the one being naive.
Just to note, if you want to read a great blog on this feud with a customer focus spin, check out the blog my colleague Melissa Meier wrote.
"Once upon a time there lived a sea lion who had lost the sea. He lived in a country known as the barren lands. High on a plateau, far from any coast, it was a place so dry and dusty that it could only be called a desert. A kind of coarse grass grew in patches here and there, and a few trees were scattered across the horizon. But mostly, it was dust. And sometimes wind, which together make one very thirsty. Of course, it must seem strange to you that such a beautiful creature should wind up in the desert at all. He was, mind you, a sea lion. But things like this do happen.
How the sea lion came to the barren lands, no one could remember. It all seemed so very long ago. So long, in fact, it appeared as though he had always been there. Not that he belonged in such an arid place. How could that be? He was, after all, a sea lion. But as you know, once you have lived so long in a certain spot, no matter how odd, you come to think of it as home."
-Quote from the book "Desire" by Brent Curtis and John Eldredge
Does this sound like anyone you know in the workplace? I am a big John Eldredge fan and actually received three of his books for Christmas. I came across this story in one of the books I was reading and thought, this really describes the trapped employee. These are employees who aren't excited about the company but do not plan to leave. Usually when I describe the trapped employee, most people can instantly picture a few of these people in their workplace.
I do not think a lot of employees today start off their career hoping to be trapped, hoping to be in a job that leads nowhere in a company they do not care about and does not seem to care about them. But, after time, many employees (20%-30% on average) fall into this category. They do not plan to leave but aren't excited about staying.
I think over the past couple of years, many companies have become that barren land. A mentality of "let's buckle down and get through this" has prevailed, an attitude of "this is just a job" has resulted. Now, I am not suggesting companies have keggers every Friday, although this would probably increase employee loyalty. However, it would probably severely impact productivity. What I am talking about is remember the employees, celebrate the success (even a flat year where the company made money is worthy of a celebration in today's economy), reward high performing employees, give access to training and development so employees feel you care about them. Remembering the employees will improve employee loyalty, which will have a positive impact on the overall success of the organization.
One other question I think companies seem to forget to ask themselves is, "Do we have the right people in the right job or do we have people in a job because we are too busy with other things?" Do we have sea lions in the desert and camels in the sea? Take time to review the personnel, their skills and abilities, and what jobs they are in.
Now I have some questions for the employee, "Are you just going through the motions? If so, why?" My blog last week spoke to this. There is no reason to look back on your career and see most of it was spent in the desert. Go find the sea. The road will be difficult and treacherous but rewarding once you find it.
How the sea lion came to the barren lands, no one could remember. It all seemed so very long ago. So long, in fact, it appeared as though he had always been there. Not that he belonged in such an arid place. How could that be? He was, after all, a sea lion. But as you know, once you have lived so long in a certain spot, no matter how odd, you come to think of it as home."
-Quote from the book "Desire" by Brent Curtis and John Eldredge
Does this sound like anyone you know in the workplace? I am a big John Eldredge fan and actually received three of his books for Christmas. I came across this story in one of the books I was reading and thought, this really describes the trapped employee. These are employees who aren't excited about the company but do not plan to leave. Usually when I describe the trapped employee, most people can instantly picture a few of these people in their workplace.
I do not think a lot of employees today start off their career hoping to be trapped, hoping to be in a job that leads nowhere in a company they do not care about and does not seem to care about them. But, after time, many employees (20%-30% on average) fall into this category. They do not plan to leave but aren't excited about staying.
I think over the past couple of years, many companies have become that barren land. A mentality of "let's buckle down and get through this" has prevailed, an attitude of "this is just a job" has resulted. Now, I am not suggesting companies have keggers every Friday, although this would probably increase employee loyalty. However, it would probably severely impact productivity. What I am talking about is remember the employees, celebrate the success (even a flat year where the company made money is worthy of a celebration in today's economy), reward high performing employees, give access to training and development so employees feel you care about them. Remembering the employees will improve employee loyalty, which will have a positive impact on the overall success of the organization.
One other question I think companies seem to forget to ask themselves is, "Do we have the right people in the right job or do we have people in a job because we are too busy with other things?" Do we have sea lions in the desert and camels in the sea? Take time to review the personnel, their skills and abilities, and what jobs they are in.
Now I have some questions for the employee, "Are you just going through the motions? If so, why?" My blog last week spoke to this. There is no reason to look back on your career and see most of it was spent in the desert. Go find the sea. The road will be difficult and treacherous but rewarding once you find it.
A new study has been released by The Conference Board showing the lowest levels of employee satisfaction in 20 years. Less than half of employees surveyed are satisfied with their job.
Being a researcher, I want to know why. There are the obvious reasons, layoffs over the past couple of years, the way companies treat employees, and lack of opportunities so employees may be stuck in jobs or in companies they are not happy with. I have read several blogs about this study talking about the economy being the cause, or leaders who still don't understand the need of taking care of their employees. I get that and I agree with all of that. However, what I continue to wonder is, is there something bigger going on here? Has the recession caused people to evaluate the role jobs and our work has in fulfilling our lives? Are people coming to the conclusion that they are no longer what they do for a living and are struggling with where to find significance from? I have a friend of mine who quit his job and decided to go to Bible college. I have another friend who is debating about quitting his job to work at a family camp in Michigan.
The other thing I am wondering is this drop in satisfaction a byproduct of a loss of passion in general in our lives. Where did the flame go? You can say what you want about Obama's politics, but I personally believe a big reason he won the election is because he lit a flame in people that they so desperately wanted lit. The past two years have been rough for most, inside and outside of work, people are stressed, tired, and beat down. The flame is now just a flicker.
For 2010, maybe we should focus less on what we do but more on who we are? Less on getting through each day but truly living each day? Are you living your dreams or going through the motions? If not, why not? Don't tell me there aren't opportunities available, that is an excuse. Once you find what you want to do, you will find opportunities.
Well another study has come out with the dire prediction that 60% of people surveyed plan to look for a job in 2010. I have blogged about the sky is falling enough so this will be my last one on the topic this year.
I was thinking about the 60% number and the impact it could have on a company. So let's say a company has 300 employees. I doubt 60% will actually leave their job in 2010, so let's just say half of that will leave in 2010, or 30%. So this 300 employee company could be losing 90 people in 2010. This is just voluntary turnover, I am sure involuntary turnover will add a few more but for the sake of the argument, let's just focus on voluntary turnover. The average cost to replace a worker is 1.5 times their salary. Let's assume these 90 employees are making $30,000 a year, which is probably low but if the forecasts are accurate about the number of people leaving, the labor pool might be somewhat deep so the cost of replacing an employee might not be as high as usual, so we will stick with the salary of $30,000. The cost of replacing each employee is roughly $45,000 per employee. In 2010, this small company could easily feel a financial impact of $4,050,000 from replacing these 90 people.
Let me drive this home with one another point. Almost every study I have read, indicates the high performers are the ones most at risk for leaving. So back to the example, of those 90 employees that will leave, a majority of those will be top talent. They are upset because companies aren't giving raises and bonuses so they are going to find a company that is willing to give them a little extra financially.
So let me ask a question, if it is costing this company over four million dollars in soft and hard costs to replace these employees, does not giving a raise or a bonus (especially to top performers) really make financial sense? Now, I know previously, employees rarely left solely for money, it was usually because of an opportunity to advance their career, work-life balance, etc. I recognize not all companies can afford bonuses and raises, but most companies could do a better job with training, career development, work-life balance, etc. Improving these areas might offset the lack of raises or bonuses.
I realize you can argue with my math and say the company may not need to replace all 90 employees, and the cost of replacing might be high, blah, blah, blah. That is not the point. The point is companies need to start focusing more long term with their employees and assessing now, what will increase loyalty in employees be it financial or environmental (training and development, career advancement, work-life balance, etc.) changes that will keep these high performers so companies can take advantage of the opportunities that will arise as the economy turns around.
I was thinking about the 60% number and the impact it could have on a company. So let's say a company has 300 employees. I doubt 60% will actually leave their job in 2010, so let's just say half of that will leave in 2010, or 30%. So this 300 employee company could be losing 90 people in 2010. This is just voluntary turnover, I am sure involuntary turnover will add a few more but for the sake of the argument, let's just focus on voluntary turnover. The average cost to replace a worker is 1.5 times their salary. Let's assume these 90 employees are making $30,000 a year, which is probably low but if the forecasts are accurate about the number of people leaving, the labor pool might be somewhat deep so the cost of replacing an employee might not be as high as usual, so we will stick with the salary of $30,000. The cost of replacing each employee is roughly $45,000 per employee. In 2010, this small company could easily feel a financial impact of $4,050,000 from replacing these 90 people.
Let me drive this home with one another point. Almost every study I have read, indicates the high performers are the ones most at risk for leaving. So back to the example, of those 90 employees that will leave, a majority of those will be top talent. They are upset because companies aren't giving raises and bonuses so they are going to find a company that is willing to give them a little extra financially.
So let me ask a question, if it is costing this company over four million dollars in soft and hard costs to replace these employees, does not giving a raise or a bonus (especially to top performers) really make financial sense? Now, I know previously, employees rarely left solely for money, it was usually because of an opportunity to advance their career, work-life balance, etc. I recognize not all companies can afford bonuses and raises, but most companies could do a better job with training, career development, work-life balance, etc. Improving these areas might offset the lack of raises or bonuses.
I realize you can argue with my math and say the company may not need to replace all 90 employees, and the cost of replacing might be high, blah, blah, blah. That is not the point. The point is companies need to start focusing more long term with their employees and assessing now, what will increase loyalty in employees be it financial or environmental (training and development, career advancement, work-life balance, etc.) changes that will keep these high performers so companies can take advantage of the opportunities that will arise as the economy turns around.
This month marks my 10th year at Walker. Over that time, I have done hundreds of employee loyalty/engagement surveys on companies in a variety of industries, sizes, and parts of the world. A fairly consistent area of weakness is long-term training and development. Companies continue to ignore this problem in hopes it will go away. Unfortunately, what usually happens is the employee is the one who goes away, to a company who cares about offering long-term training and development.
Companies complain about providing new skills and abilities to their employees for fear they will be more marketable and leave. A former colleague of mine always fought that argument by telling these companies they have two choices, they can train their employees and they might leave, or they can not train their employees and they will stay, leaving you with an untrained and unmotivated workforce.
Cisco is a company that understands the importance of training and development and is willing to invest in it. This article outlines their program for giving training and development to high performers. The cost is about $10,000 per employee. However, the program has already generated ideas that could net the company billions, not a bad ROI. Also, only two of the 360 participants in the program have left the company. That is a company that understands the importance of training and development employees rather than face the alternative.
Companies complain about providing new skills and abilities to their employees for fear they will be more marketable and leave. A former colleague of mine always fought that argument by telling these companies they have two choices, they can train their employees and they might leave, or they can not train their employees and they will stay, leaving you with an untrained and unmotivated workforce.
Cisco is a company that understands the importance of training and development and is willing to invest in it. This article outlines their program for giving training and development to high performers. The cost is about $10,000 per employee. However, the program has already generated ideas that could net the company billions, not a bad ROI. Also, only two of the 360 participants in the program have left the company. That is a company that understands the importance of training and development employees rather than face the alternative.
This article summarized a recent study that found high performers had a large drop in their levels of engagement compared to last year. All employees had a drop in employee engagement but high performers dropped 25%. I have written about this a couple of times before (here, here, and here). Not only will there be a mass exodus when the economy turns around but many of those leaving will be the high performers that are critical to the success of the organization. So what are companies doing about this?
Nothing.
I have talked to several others in the employee loyalty/employee engagement/HR Consulting area and they are not seeing increases in activity. I continue to hear from CEOs and heads of HR, "This is important and 'ping' me in 2010." First, I hate the use of the word "ping", but second by 2010 it will be too late. Companies need to take action now.
Compounding the problem of high performers exiting companies when the economy turns around is many employees re-evaluate their careers at the end of the year and numerous employees will be setting goals to find a new job in 2010.
Companies that are taking action now will be way ahead of the curve and in a better competitive position to take advantage of new opportunities versus those that are just thinking about planning something maybe sometime in 2010 (or so...maybe).
Nothing.
I have talked to several others in the employee loyalty/employee engagement/HR Consulting area and they are not seeing increases in activity. I continue to hear from CEOs and heads of HR, "This is important and 'ping' me in 2010." First, I hate the use of the word "ping", but second by 2010 it will be too late. Companies need to take action now.
Compounding the problem of high performers exiting companies when the economy turns around is many employees re-evaluate their careers at the end of the year and numerous employees will be setting goals to find a new job in 2010.
Companies that are taking action now will be way ahead of the curve and in a better competitive position to take advantage of new opportunities versus those that are just thinking about planning something maybe sometime in 2010 (or so...maybe).
While Walker is not a perfect company, I have been doing this for 10 years and have yet to find a perfect company, I think there are several things Walker does that other companies could learn from. I have already covered the Paid Time Off Policy and the work itself. In this blog, I am going to cover a potpourri of small things that all contribute to the overall culture of Walker.
First is the flex-time. At Walker, most of us can pretty much come and go as we please. As long as we are hitting our goals of client related work and our clients our happy, we can come and go as we please. Having three kids and one on the way, I cannot tell you what a blessing it is when something comes up at home to know I can leave and take care of my personal matters. I recognize I need to make sure my work is done but it is such a relief to know I have that flexibility.
Second are the free drinks. This seems like one of those small, silly things but I do believe it helps contribute to the culture here. Walker has free coffee (Starbuck's and Seattle's Best) along with free Pepsi products. I do not drink coffee or too many Pepsi products except for Mountain Dew. I firmly believe Mountain Dew is the nectar of the gods and drink way too much of it. Maybe this is not such a perk since every evening I have a major sugar crash.
Third is the dress code. Walker has a casual dress code, which basically means wear a nice shirt and jeans. There are times where I need to dress up and actually wear a shirt and tie probably at least once a week. It is sure nice if I do not have any client facing meetings to know I can wear something really comfortable to work. I know some companies are moving back to a more formal dress code as they feel it helps the employees have a more professional attitude and be more focused. For me, I am very comfortable and relaxed in jeans and feel more productive because I am more comfortable. If I could wear shorts and a t-shirt, I would do it in a second, which is probably a large reason why that is not allowed.
Fourth is the attitude of Senior Leaders. All of the Senior Leaders are very approachable and down to earth. That may seem like something that is very common, but having dealt with many Senior Leaders, I can assure you that is not the case. They all say they have an open door policy, which is often talked about but rarely practiced. I really feel like I can go to any of them at any time and ask them a question. They also know us on a personal level. For example, I was talking to a Senior Leader a couple of weeks ago and he remembered how many kids I had, that we were foster parents, that we home school, and that my wife is a stay at home mom. I was actually surprised because they have so many important things to keep track of, to remember intimate details of my family meant a lot. This also makes me feel comfortable going to them with new thoughts and ideas as I know they will listen.
First is the flex-time. At Walker, most of us can pretty much come and go as we please. As long as we are hitting our goals of client related work and our clients our happy, we can come and go as we please. Having three kids and one on the way, I cannot tell you what a blessing it is when something comes up at home to know I can leave and take care of my personal matters. I recognize I need to make sure my work is done but it is such a relief to know I have that flexibility.
Second are the free drinks. This seems like one of those small, silly things but I do believe it helps contribute to the culture here. Walker has free coffee (Starbuck's and Seattle's Best) along with free Pepsi products. I do not drink coffee or too many Pepsi products except for Mountain Dew. I firmly believe Mountain Dew is the nectar of the gods and drink way too much of it. Maybe this is not such a perk since every evening I have a major sugar crash.
Third is the dress code. Walker has a casual dress code, which basically means wear a nice shirt and jeans. There are times where I need to dress up and actually wear a shirt and tie probably at least once a week. It is sure nice if I do not have any client facing meetings to know I can wear something really comfortable to work. I know some companies are moving back to a more formal dress code as they feel it helps the employees have a more professional attitude and be more focused. For me, I am very comfortable and relaxed in jeans and feel more productive because I am more comfortable. If I could wear shorts and a t-shirt, I would do it in a second, which is probably a large reason why that is not allowed.
Fourth is the attitude of Senior Leaders. All of the Senior Leaders are very approachable and down to earth. That may seem like something that is very common, but having dealt with many Senior Leaders, I can assure you that is not the case. They all say they have an open door policy, which is often talked about but rarely practiced. I really feel like I can go to any of them at any time and ask them a question. They also know us on a personal level. For example, I was talking to a Senior Leader a couple of weeks ago and he remembered how many kids I had, that we were foster parents, that we home school, and that my wife is a stay at home mom. I was actually surprised because they have so many important things to keep track of, to remember intimate details of my family meant a lot. This also makes me feel comfortable going to them with new thoughts and ideas as I know they will listen.
In my last blog, I wrote about one of the reasons Walker made the list of Best Places to Work from Consulting Magazine. There are a couple of other reasons why I think Walker made the list and I will continue to share these reasons over my next couple of blogs.
In this blog, I want to focus on the work Walker does. Walker has transformed from a research company to a consulting company over the past several years. As part of that transformation, we have gone from just delivering a bunch of numbers to a client, to giving our clients information that can impact their business and then working with them to maximize the impact the information has on the organization.
Recently, we had a client where from one survey with us, we saved the client over $21 million dollars and they gained an additional $30 million in new revenue all from using the data we provided in the ways we recommended.
While at initial glance, it may seem like we just do surveys and provide numbers (and yes, my wife still calls me a data geek) but what we do in actuality is positively impact our client's business. We can actually see and articulate the impact we are having. When you can see the impact you are having and the fruit of all your efforts can be seen in actual business results, the work goes from being a job to something one can be passionate about.
In this blog, I want to focus on the work Walker does. Walker has transformed from a research company to a consulting company over the past several years. As part of that transformation, we have gone from just delivering a bunch of numbers to a client, to giving our clients information that can impact their business and then working with them to maximize the impact the information has on the organization.
Recently, we had a client where from one survey with us, we saved the client over $21 million dollars and they gained an additional $30 million in new revenue all from using the data we provided in the ways we recommended.
While at initial glance, it may seem like we just do surveys and provide numbers (and yes, my wife still calls me a data geek) but what we do in actuality is positively impact our client's business. We can actually see and articulate the impact we are having. When you can see the impact you are having and the fruit of all your efforts can be seen in actual business results, the work goes from being a job to something one can be passionate about.
Walker recently made the list for the Consulting Magazine's Best Places to Work for small consulting firms (20 to 499 consultants) in the U.S. Often in my blogs, I focus a lot on what other companies do and industry trends. I thought I would take a couple of blogs and turn the mirror on ourselves and focus on what Walker is doing that helped it make the Best Places to Work list.
First let me clarify the award. Consulting Magazine is a magazine devoted to the consulting industry. Over the past several years Walker has shifted its focus from a research company to a consulting company. This award is not only a recognition of Walker being a great place to work but also Walker is a consluting company. We feel the award is more significant than the standard Best Places to Work in Indiana or wherever, as we were compared to our peers and came out as one of the best.
One of the aspects where Walker excelled was Work/Life Balance, ranking second. There are many pieces that go into Walker being excellent for work/life balance. One of the biggest is the paid time off (PTO) policy. Walker associates get over five weeks off a year, yeah that is right, I said over five weeks off. This is an addition to the standard company holidays (Christmas, 4th of July, etc.). They do not delineate between sick days and vacation days. This eases the administrative burden of HR and management to deal with doctor's notes and tracking if it was PTO or a sick day.
I was talking to a friend of mine about work and we got to talking about vacation times. He was telling me if he is sick, he has to take a vacation day. He can only take a sick day when his vacation days are gone. What a stupid, stupid policy. This is not some small mom and pop shop he is working for either, it is a national engineering firm. So let's play this out, I am sick, do you think I am going to take a vacation day to stay home? There is no way, I am going to come in, even though I am probably not going to be very productive and will probably infect the office with whatever bug I have. Rather than stay home for a day and get the rest I need so I can come back to work at full strength, I am going to come into work and this bug will drag on for days. What message does this policy send to the employees? This tells me the company is going to penalize their employees for getting sick and staying home. That is what this is, taking a vacation day for being sick is a penalty.
This PTO policy is just one aspect, I will go into a few more over the next couple of days.
First let me clarify the award. Consulting Magazine is a magazine devoted to the consulting industry. Over the past several years Walker has shifted its focus from a research company to a consulting company. This award is not only a recognition of Walker being a great place to work but also Walker is a consluting company. We feel the award is more significant than the standard Best Places to Work in Indiana or wherever, as we were compared to our peers and came out as one of the best.
One of the aspects where Walker excelled was Work/Life Balance, ranking second. There are many pieces that go into Walker being excellent for work/life balance. One of the biggest is the paid time off (PTO) policy. Walker associates get over five weeks off a year, yeah that is right, I said over five weeks off. This is an addition to the standard company holidays (Christmas, 4th of July, etc.). They do not delineate between sick days and vacation days. This eases the administrative burden of HR and management to deal with doctor's notes and tracking if it was PTO or a sick day.
I was talking to a friend of mine about work and we got to talking about vacation times. He was telling me if he is sick, he has to take a vacation day. He can only take a sick day when his vacation days are gone. What a stupid, stupid policy. This is not some small mom and pop shop he is working for either, it is a national engineering firm. So let's play this out, I am sick, do you think I am going to take a vacation day to stay home? There is no way, I am going to come in, even though I am probably not going to be very productive and will probably infect the office with whatever bug I have. Rather than stay home for a day and get the rest I need so I can come back to work at full strength, I am going to come into work and this bug will drag on for days. What message does this policy send to the employees? This tells me the company is going to penalize their employees for getting sick and staying home. That is what this is, taking a vacation day for being sick is a penalty.
This PTO policy is just one aspect, I will go into a few more over the next couple of days.
I know I have written about this before but until it starts to sink in, I will continue to write about it. Leaders that do not believe they have an employee morale issue right now because there are no options available are taking an extremely short-sighted and downright dangerous approach to running their business.
Yet another study confirms organizations are going to be in trouble with a mass exodus of employees once the economy turns around. A study done by Hudson (a recruiting firm) has found employees are disgruntled with the additional workload they are being asked to take on. They are doing it out of fear of losing their job right now. As soon the economy turns around, there will be a mass exodus from those companies who are not treating their employees the right way.
The article mentions three things to help with employee morale:
1. Communication- Be as transparent as possible. I think employees understand the tough decisions Senior Leaders are forced to make now. What they want is to understand what is going on and why.
2. Continue to develop employees. I recognize budgets are tight but there are creative and inexpensive ways to develop employees, things like creating mentor relationships, on-line training tools, etc. are great ways to ensure the workforce remains sharp and ready to take advantage of the opportunities that become available as the economy turns around.
3. As soon as possible, unfreeze wages and bonuses. I have talked to many employees during this recession who accept the freezing of wages because they realize it was either freeze wages or be out of a job. They will expect when the company turns around that wages will thaw and raises and bonuses will be instituted again.
Yet another study confirms organizations are going to be in trouble with a mass exodus of employees once the economy turns around. A study done by Hudson (a recruiting firm) has found employees are disgruntled with the additional workload they are being asked to take on. They are doing it out of fear of losing their job right now. As soon the economy turns around, there will be a mass exodus from those companies who are not treating their employees the right way.
The article mentions three things to help with employee morale:
1. Communication- Be as transparent as possible. I think employees understand the tough decisions Senior Leaders are forced to make now. What they want is to understand what is going on and why.
2. Continue to develop employees. I recognize budgets are tight but there are creative and inexpensive ways to develop employees, things like creating mentor relationships, on-line training tools, etc. are great ways to ensure the workforce remains sharp and ready to take advantage of the opportunities that become available as the economy turns around.
3. As soon as possible, unfreeze wages and bonuses. I have talked to many employees during this recession who accept the freezing of wages because they realize it was either freeze wages or be out of a job. They will expect when the company turns around that wages will thaw and raises and bonuses will be instituted again.
Well, we knew it would happen. Marketing guru Fred Reicheld is now applying the Net Promoter Score (NPS) to employee surveys now. This was bound to happen because Fred is a great marketer and this was the next logical step in the evolution of NPS. So now we have the Employee Net Promoter Score (ENPS).
The concept is similar to the customer NPS. You use the likelihood to recommend question, have a scale from 0-11 and subtract the Promoters (answering 9 or 10 on the scale) from the Detractors (answering 6-0 on the scale).
The beauty of this approach is in its simplicity. Everyone likes to have their one number they can track over time and this number is easy to understand and easy to track over time.
One of the problems is we have found almost 40% of employees who are not engaged or loyal to a company will still recommend the company as a good place to work. So only looking at recommend is not necessarily an accurate measure of employee's perceptions of their workplace.
In actuality, using the ENPS is probably a fine thing to track in and of itself. It is important that the right questions are being asked the right way and the information is being used in such a way that it is having an impact on the organization. You can't ask just one question and expect to get useable data that can help create change in an organization. To me, the question is not necessarily what is the one number, but what questions are asked and how is the information used.
If you want to read more info on NPS and ENPS, below are a sites that have more info:
-Vovici blog on ENPS
-Walker blog on NPS
-Walker article on NPS
The concept is similar to the customer NPS. You use the likelihood to recommend question, have a scale from 0-11 and subtract the Promoters (answering 9 or 10 on the scale) from the Detractors (answering 6-0 on the scale).
The beauty of this approach is in its simplicity. Everyone likes to have their one number they can track over time and this number is easy to understand and easy to track over time.
One of the problems is we have found almost 40% of employees who are not engaged or loyal to a company will still recommend the company as a good place to work. So only looking at recommend is not necessarily an accurate measure of employee's perceptions of their workplace.
In actuality, using the ENPS is probably a fine thing to track in and of itself. It is important that the right questions are being asked the right way and the information is being used in such a way that it is having an impact on the organization. You can't ask just one question and expect to get useable data that can help create change in an organization. To me, the question is not necessarily what is the one number, but what questions are asked and how is the information used.
If you want to read more info on NPS and ENPS, below are a sites that have more info:
-Vovici blog on ENPS
-Walker blog on NPS
-Walker article on NPS
I stumbled on this article on CNN.com. It shares the 43 weirdest things said in an interview. What does this have to do with employee loyalty and loyalty in the workplace? I have no idea. I just know it is a gray, rainy day here in Indy and these cheered me up so I hope the do the same for you.
Let me share a personal story of a dumb thing to say in an interview. One of my best friends was interviewing for a job and was asked the traditional question, "Where do you see yourself in five years?". His response was, "Hopefully laid up at home with a work-related injury" Now, this was a quote from a popular morning radio show and my friend had hoped if he said this, it would break the ice a bit and loosen up the interview. My friend said the interviewer clearly did not listen to the show because he did not crack a smile, just stared at him for a moment and then moved on to the next question. He did not get the job.
Do you have any funny interviewing stories?
Let me share a personal story of a dumb thing to say in an interview. One of my best friends was interviewing for a job and was asked the traditional question, "Where do you see yourself in five years?". His response was, "Hopefully laid up at home with a work-related injury" Now, this was a quote from a popular morning radio show and my friend had hoped if he said this, it would break the ice a bit and loosen up the interview. My friend said the interviewer clearly did not listen to the show because he did not crack a smile, just stared at him for a moment and then moved on to the next question. He did not get the job.
Do you have any funny interviewing stories?
A recent study by Adecco found some troubling times might be ahead for companies when the economy turns around. I know that sounds counterintuitive that companies might struggle when the economy turns around. Companies may struggle with a serious talent drain with employees jumping ship as soon as the economy turns around and opportunities become available. Here are a few of the key findings from the study:
- The majority of respondents indicated they are at least somewhat likely to look for a job when the economy turns around.
- The Generation Y group was even more likely at 71% indicating they are going to look for a job when the economy turns around.
This is a message I have been trying to hammer home that companies must take care of their employees now, even with high unemployment rates and the (inaccurate) perception that employees do not have opportunities available. By taking care of their employees now, I believe they will be less likely to leave when the economy turns around. I recognize the need to be cost conscious during this time but you cannot focus so much on the bottom line that you neglect the employees.
I do see a small bit of silver lining. 44% of those 60 and over are planning to delay retirement. For years, we have been hearing about the talent gap that will occur when the baby boomers leave the workforce. From the looks of things, this may be delayed for a while until baby boomers can replenish their retirement funds.
As I mentioned in my last blog the perceived talent level of the applicant pool has not risen much despite record unemployment. This makes me wonder if companies are just jettisoning their dead weight.
If so, why are they waiting until now? It is pretty rare that a company does not know who the good employees are from the bad ones (if they don't know, they have a whole set of other issues). I recognize that in a few rare cases, a bad employee can turn into a good employee with training, coaching, etc. Those cases are rare though.
I believe by removing the bad employees, it will actually help improve employee loyalty. In most companies, there is a problem in consistently applying employee policies and the execution of the policies is a key driver of employee engagement. What could be more inconsistent than treating bad employees the same as good employees by allowing them both to collect a paycheck (probably for similar amounts) while the good employee is probably carrying more of the load and giving the organization a better return on its investment. This kind of behavior is common in organization and is a good way to get rid of the good employees and keep the bad ones.
If so, why are they waiting until now? It is pretty rare that a company does not know who the good employees are from the bad ones (if they don't know, they have a whole set of other issues). I recognize that in a few rare cases, a bad employee can turn into a good employee with training, coaching, etc. Those cases are rare though.
I believe by removing the bad employees, it will actually help improve employee loyalty. In most companies, there is a problem in consistently applying employee policies and the execution of the policies is a key driver of employee engagement. What could be more inconsistent than treating bad employees the same as good employees by allowing them both to collect a paycheck (probably for similar amounts) while the good employee is probably carrying more of the load and giving the organization a better return on its investment. This kind of behavior is common in organization and is a good way to get rid of the good employees and keep the bad ones.
I was talking to Brian Koma at Vovici last week. He said he had talked to a few HR representatives and asked if they have noticed any improvements in the talent of applicants. You would think the answer would be yes given the high unemployment rate. However, he found the answer to be no, HR representatives are not seeing much difference in the talent level of applicants. So then who is out there?
I believe a lot of companies are cutting the dead weight, or people they probably should have let go a long time ago and are now using the economy as a reason to get rid of them. I know there are some good employees out there, I have a few friends out of work right now, and I know they are bright, hard working individuals. However, I think a lot of what is out there is not necessarily the cream of the crop.
This makes me wonder a couple of things: 1) If these people should have been let go a long time ago, why weren't they? 2) Why do companies continue to not care about employee loyalty when there continues to be a market for highly skilled and talented employees?
I will talk more about these two in my next blog.
I was on a call yesterday with our partner Vovici. During the call, we began discussing making HR relevant. Over the past several years, there have been a number of articles and presentations I have read and heard on making HR relevant. Those were during good economic times. Now, during these times, HR needs to work even harder to become relevant as Senior Leaders could see HR as a place to cut, especially entry-level or mid-level HR staff.
One way to make HR relevant is to tie HR initiatives to the business. Too often, HR initiatives are done because they feel right. There needs to be an ROI to every initiative. Here are a couple of examples:
• By measuring employee loyalty you can tie that to changes in business metrics like turnover, productivity, referrals, etc. You can also tie employee loyalty to customer perceptions. Once HR starts talking about impacting the customers, they will be seen as strategic and move from irrelevant to necessary and critical.
• If a training session is conducted, is there a noticeable increase in productivity?
• HR can review hiring practices to determine how much it is costing to replace a worker and how well they are doing placing employees.
This is a perfect opportunity for HR to send a message on how critical they are to an organization. I find HR to generally be risk averse, but if they are willing to step out and be seen as a critical and strategic part of the organization and not just a necessary evil, HR can emerge from this time as a key element in the success of any organization.
One way to make HR relevant is to tie HR initiatives to the business. Too often, HR initiatives are done because they feel right. There needs to be an ROI to every initiative. Here are a couple of examples:
• By measuring employee loyalty you can tie that to changes in business metrics like turnover, productivity, referrals, etc. You can also tie employee loyalty to customer perceptions. Once HR starts talking about impacting the customers, they will be seen as strategic and move from irrelevant to necessary and critical.
• If a training session is conducted, is there a noticeable increase in productivity?
• HR can review hiring practices to determine how much it is costing to replace a worker and how well they are doing placing employees.
This is a perfect opportunity for HR to send a message on how critical they are to an organization. I find HR to generally be risk averse, but if they are willing to step out and be seen as a critical and strategic part of the organization and not just a necessary evil, HR can emerge from this time as a key element in the success of any organization.
In my previous blog, I described a Trapped employee. Now the questions becomes, what do you do with Trapped employees? Well it depends (how is that for a solid answer), it depends on who is Trapped. For example, hospitals today may have to trap their nurses in order to keep them. Without the necessary nursing staff, hospitals run the risk of not being able to utilize all of their beds or they could overwork their staff which could lead to a host of other problems. Now ideally, the nurses would be Truly Loyal to the hospital (want to be there and plan to stay) but hospitals might throw money (which is a great way to trap somebody) at the nurses in order to get them to stay, even when they may want to leave.
Organizations can make improvements in the organization that will make the company a better place to work. This will in turn move the Trapped employees to the Truly Loyal category as they no longer feel neutral or negative about the organization but realize how great the company is and thus, they want to be part of the organization.
Finally, I have clients that I have worked with that may try to help some of the Trapped employees "graduate" from the company. In some cases either it is just not a fit, or they just aren't a good employee. In either case, sometimes the best scenario for the organization and the employee is to help them move on to another opportunity.
Organizations can make improvements in the organization that will make the company a better place to work. This will in turn move the Trapped employees to the Truly Loyal category as they no longer feel neutral or negative about the organization but realize how great the company is and thus, they want to be part of the organization.
Finally, I have clients that I have worked with that may try to help some of the Trapped employees "graduate" from the company. In some cases either it is just not a fit, or they just aren't a good employee. In either case, sometimes the best scenario for the organization and the employee is to help them move on to another opportunity.
Powered by Compendium Blogware