The EPG Connection

By: Eileen McDargh

January 21 2009 - Even Joe the Pipefitter must look askance at some of the moves made in corporate America when faced with a string of bad news. (Sorry… I just can’t use “Joe the Plumber”, a guy who didn’t pay his taxes, isn’t certified as a plumber, and has tried to cash in on his 15 seconds of fame which - amazingly McGraw Hill has turned into a book while making great authors wait for a contract.)

Mistake #1: Become reactive and reactionary
There is truth in the old saying “Respond in haste. Regret in sorrow.” This is also known as the “ready, fire, aim” approach of leadership. When leaders fail to gather the information and critically assess the long-term impact of decisions, severe errors are made. Consider the Big Three auto executives who knee-jerked their way on private planes to ask for a handout without ever having a plan. Now that’s a bonehead mistake.

First, stop any action and breathe. Think long-term strategy. Be cautious. Be proactive. Test out the decisions by saying, “If this… then this…” so you can try it on for size.

Mistake #2: Huddle with only the corporate folks
First, answers are often found at the floor level, not at the ceiling. Involve everyone in the search for efficiencies and innovations. Engage everyone in a common vision and mission. Besides, if managers tell employees what to do, you’ve taken away all sense of responsibility and ownership. How refreshing to have the Obama team now posting discussions on the internet and seeking input from a variety of people with differing viewpoints. Building transparency goes a long way for building trust and making us all feel we are part of the solution.

Mistake #3: Cut. Cut. Cut.
No one EVER downsized their way to greatness. Wholesale termination of employees without thinking about the cost of underserved customers and too much work done by too few people or canceling the meeting without realizing that this is the time TO GATHER and candidly talk are just two examples of cuts that could have been done with a scalpel instead of a hacksaw. Substitute Jello for Jamoca Fudge and Two Buck Chuck for Dom Perignon but bring people together.

As for layoffs, if your organization or department can handle this-bring everyone together and spread out the facts. One very smart leader found that employees were willing to reduce work schedules, work half-time, and job share rather than have members of their team terminated. For more ideas, read Responsible Restructuring: Creative and Profitable Alternatives to Layoffs by Wayne Cascio, professor of management at the University of Colorado-Denver Business School.

Mistake #4: Go after new clients and customers
Unless your current customers have vanished because of poor quality or service, these can be your best source of new revenue. Ask how you can turn them into champions of what you provide. Make them feel special and valuable. I’ve noticed that my bank is now making every effort to thank me for my business, to call me by name, to answer any request with a “no problem” attitude. Sure, they should have been doing that all along but-better late than never. Besides, they’ve already got all my money in the safe. I think they’d like to keep it.

Mistake #5: Do more with less
We’ve been hearing this for years. In my consulting practice, I have often found that much of the “more” is work that provides no value at the end of the day. Scrutinize every process; get rid of the sacred cows and the egos. Translate every action into a dollar value. In one organization, we found that senior executives were tripping over each other to put their two cents into every PowerPoint presentation that was made. It was a waste of executive talent, made each project longer than necessary, disempowered the employee creating the presentation, and actually used up some $15,000 worth of senior management time!

BONUS Mistake: Buy into pessimism
It’s a huge mistake we ALL make when we let the news of the day finds us hiding under the covers, chopping up the furniture for kindling and searching for recipes made with bread and water. What we have here is an opportunity to really consider what is most important, to spend time at work that is meaningful, and to nurture relationships that matter. We have an opportunity to reclaim our reputation, our integrity, and our future. Not to do this would be our biggest mistake.

To condense the wisdom of a Hopi Elder, “This is the Eleventh Hour…and we are the ones we’ve been waiting for.”

© 2009, McDargh Communications. Publication rights granted to all venues so long as article and by-line are reprinted intact and all links are made live.

Known as a powerful presenter and facilitator, Eileen McDargh, CSP, CPAE has been creating conversations that matter and connections that count since 1980. Executive Excellence ranks her among the top 100 thought-leaders in leadership development. Her newest book, Gifts from the Mountain, received the 2008 Ben Franklin book award. To hire Eileen as a speaker, coach or retreat leader visit http://www.eileenmcdargh.com.

By Yaffa Klugerman

Temporary hires increased significantly last month, prompting speculation that permanent hiring will soon be on the rise as well.

The Labor Department reported last week that 44,000 temporary jobs were added since July, including 34,000 last month alone. The number is precisely the same amount of temp jobs lost between January 2008 and July 2009.

“Most companies have cut their head count back so far that they don’t have extra help,” explained Tom Darrow of Talent Connections in Atlanta, who was interviewed by 11 Alive. “And all of a sudden some projects are coming along, they’re starting to ramp back up and they need the help.”

Darrow told 11 Alive that employers are hiring temporary workers because they are being cautious about offering permanent positions. “It saves them money in the long term,” he noted. “They don’t have to pay benefits for contractors or temporaries. They can try them out before they hire them full time.”

The Wall Street Journal points out another benefit of hiring temps: If their employment ends, it’s less devastating to staff than laying off permanent workers. “It has a much smaller effect on the morale of your permanent staff,” noted Jeffrey Wenger, associate professor of public administration and policy at the University of Georgia, who was quoted in the Journal.

Economists noted that a rise in temporary hires could signal the beginning of an increase in overall employment. “This is a way for companies to dip their toes in the water,” explained Neal Soss, chief economist at Credit Suisse in New York, who was quoted by Bloomberg.com. “If firms are willing to do that, it tells you that they’re feeling a little better about their business prospects, and that’s the beginning of something.”

But temporary jobs can be demanding, reports the Chicago Tribune: Because budgets are so tight at companies, temps are often required to perform the duties of several different employees.

“They want a receptionist who’s also an administrator and answering the phone and making the coffee,” said Daphne Dolan, managing partner at City Staffing, who was interviewed by the Tribune. “They want hybrid people.”

According to Joy Moore, a career coach in Albuquerque, New Mexico who was interviewed by the Journal, many job seekers don’t consider temporary work because they are determined to find permanent positions. They also falsely assume that temporary jobs are for low level work.

But such assumptions are untrue, said Moore, and temporary work is “definitely an area people should be looking at.”

Congratulations to our July 2009 employee of the month, Michelle Williamson.  Michelle registered with Emerson Personnel Group in March of 2009.  Her computer software and keyboarding scores were superb. We immediately placed Michelle with one of our Center City Philadelphia clients in April of 2009 and she is still there!  Our client is extremely pleased with Michelle.  Thank you, Michelle, for a job well done!

By Denise Kersten, USATODAY.com As the jobless rate continues to rise, few are exempt from layoff jitters. Downsizing, re-organization, a shift in strategy — whatever you want to call it — can make going to work seem like a game of musical chairs. But there are some proactive measures you can take to ensure you’re not left standing at the end of the round. Companies rarely select employees for layoffs randomly.Performance is the number one factor employers use to determine who to shed and who to hang onto, according to a study by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM). Other major considerations: job function and skills. Unlike length of tenure with your company, these are areas where you can exercise some control by making yourself indispensable. No plan of attack is layoff-proof, but the sooner you start your offensive, the greater your odds will be.

“You can’t just turn the switch on and say, ‘Okay, I’ll be good now,’” warns Debra Cohen, Director of Research at SHRM. What you can do is start working right now to convince your boss that the company can’t afford to lose you. Here’s how:

Keep Your Chin Up
“When word starts getting out [that there will be layoffs], people tend to feel less motivated to help the company,” says Chris Jones, owner of PoliTemps, a staffing agency in Washington, D.C. But as bad news circulates, it becomes more important than ever to resist a workplace slump in performance.

Managers are looking for people willing to tackle extra responsibilities after staff reductions. Pitching in and working beyond your job description shows you’re competent, efficient and flexible.

Find a Safe Haven
Look around you. See any new faces? If so, you may want to join them. Many companies hire in areas that are bringing in revenue while they trim staff in departments that aren’t meeting the bottom line.

“Try to migrate to the area of the company where there’s growth,” says Richard Bayer, Chief Operating Officer of the Five O’Clock Club, a career counseling and outplacement firm. If you can identify the organization’s prioritized operations you may be able to follow the company resources to a safe zone. To anticipate the company’s shifting directions, track industry trends, talk to the firm’s leaders about their goals, sit in on meetings and read about the company. Of course, simply locating safer waters isn’t enough.

“Take a look at where the organization does have needs, and determine if you have some talent or skill that they could use,” Cohen says. To get the ball rolling, ask questions about new initiatives, discuss your related skills or experience and volunteer your extra time.

Brush Up
Sharpening your skills could also save you. “Once the axe is falling it can be too late. Before that time, if you see trouble on the horizon, make sure your skills are on the cutting edge,” says Bayer. Enhance your expertise by taking classes at night, utilizing on-the-job training opportunities or volunteering for new projects. Joining professional associations can also keep you current. Plus, it’s great for networking — in case your preemptive strike fails to protect your position.

Create Buzz
“You have to manage your internal PR,” Bayer says. “Take control of the way people see you.” Consider this scenario: You meet the head honcho in the elevator and he or she politely asks how things are going. What do you say? ‘Fine’ is the wrong answer. Instead, use the opportunity to mention a project you’re working on or a recent accomplishment. Don’t talk the boss’s ear off, but exude enthusiasm and give them a concrete reason to remember who you are.

“Project an image of someone who’s up-to-date in their career,” Bayer says. “You’re respected in your profession. You’re a member of associations. You bring outside information into the company. You’re a person who takes initiative.”

Behave Yourself
Managers may use layoffs to rid themselves of staff with personality problems — those with whom they have conflicts, or who have trouble getting along with others. Don’t remake your entire personality, but pay extra attention to your workplace manner. Remember the basics: “Try to be collegial, don’t take credit for other people’s work and be known as someone who supports other people,” Bayer says. And most importantly, amid layoff pressure and stress, keep your temper in check.

presented by Dynamic Resumes
www.dynamicresumesofNJ.comHow do you calculate what you NEED when you negotiate salary? And what do you SAY in response to the salary question? Back in my recruiting days, I would sometimes hear candidates tell me that they figured out that they NEED to make $X dollars in their next job. But to be brutally and completely honest, I know for a fact that the employers do not CARE what you “need” to make. In general, it is not that they are heartless…but they do have a different point of view. It is a business point of you and you NEED to understand this if you are going to negotiate effectively for a position.

When employers hear candidates describe what they NEED, it is a real turn-off. The candidate has not addressed the items that the employer cares about. In order to successfully close an offer, you must address the employer’s needs and what they care about. What does the employer care about? They care that they have found someone who is good at what they do, that the candidate is going to help them (with efficiency, professionalism, product development, customer service, etc.) to impact the bottom line in some way. They care that the individual is a good “fit” with others in the department, that they are on board with the company culture, and that the salary offered will be within their budget and within the range of what the position can pay.

What if their range does not match your NEEDS? After all, we really do have NEEDS, right? And you certainly must calculate your needs to know if a job is worthwhile for you to accept. But do yourself a favor - keep that information to yourself, please! What should you do? First, figure out if you want the job and if you want to work for that company. If so, find out what their range is, research market pricing for comparable positions in that geographic area (try www.salary.com), and yes, of course, calculate your true NEEDS, not just your wants. Use the knowledge of what you can DO for the employer to show your value and give them compelling reasons to WANT you. Keep in mind that salary is one portion of a total compensation package. Where are you willing to be flexible? If the salary is not the best, maybe you can get more vacation time, a better health package, a better pension plan, a car allowance, a sign-on bonus, etc. Think outside the box people! And, if you have given the employer those compelling reasons to WANT you, you never know what creative options they will come up with to be sure that you will say yes to them!

Hiring is a critical element of any manager’s job.

There is no joy in reiterating the importance of hiring right - there’s enough and more that has been said about the price of making the wrong hiring decision. The problem is on two fronts - there are people who know what is to be done, but don’t, and then there are people who don’t know how to go about the interviewing process in the first place. So why follow the same routine that gets you the right result by chance, and not by choice? When you’re hiring next, follow the following 4 simple steps and you’ll dramatically improve the chances of making the right hiring decision.

Understand the requirement: you may think that you know what you’re hiring for, and you probably do.

Nonetheless, draft out a quick job description if you don’t have one already. You’ll be surprised at the insight that you get into the role. This exercise offers another advantage, it not only helps you understand clearly what questions you should ask during the interview, it also allows you to remodel the role - there are many tasks that could perhaps be done by this role incumbent, and many others that could probably sit outside this role. In any case, read the job description thoroughly, and get the role clear in your head first.

Prepare, prepare, prepare: don’t reach the interview room not knowing what you want to ask.

For this, the foremost requirement is for you to have read the candidate’s CV many times over - know him well before you start interacting with him. It is not only bad manners to start looking at the CV for the first time in front of the candidate, it also enables the candidate to take charge of the interview flow, something that you don’t want ever to let happen. At the same time, know the questions that you must ask the candidate. Structuring the flow of the interview enables you to stay in control, minimises the chances of something critical not been covered, and allows you to get a comprehensive ‘feel’ of what the candidate has done in the past, and what is he capable to doing in the future.

Follow a structure: the interview has three parts - the opening, the body and the closing.

It is important to understand that each one of these is an important piece in the jigsaw. While 80% of the time is spent in the body, the opening and closing bits leave perhaps a more lasting impression in the candidate’s mind. In the opening, greet the candidate, set the tone of the interview, build rapport, make the candidate feel comfortable so that he is able to showcase what he is fully, and clarify the structure of the interview. In the body, gather behavioral information, don’t rely on “gut-feel”, sell the position to him, ask if he has any questions, clarify elements of the role and organization that he might have questions on, and always keep control. In the closing, thank the candidate, and tell him clearly what the next steps are.

Follow behavioral model: the best indicator of future performance is past performance - this is the dictum that you should always keep in mind while interviewing.

There is a simple model to follow - EAR. E is for example, continuously ask the candidate about examples of what he has done in the past. Hypothetical questions (what will you do if…) do not necessarily tell you how will be react in real-life situations, but a recount of his actions in the past under similar situations will give you an idea of what to expect in future. A is for action, continuously probe on his actions in the example (stay away from “we”, “my team”, etc.). R is for result, continuously seek the outcome of his actions in the examples that he quotes. Merely knowing the example and the action is not sufficient, you must know what happened as a result of his actions. Put together, the EAR model helps you gather information that’ll be useful in the final decision. Any other model throws up data that is not conclusive, the candidate can go either way while performing in the role.

In the final analysis, it is important to understand what the candidate has done in the past - meandering interviews that focus on generalities do not make for decisions that can stand the test of real life performance. If you don’t know what you’re looking for, how will you know when you’ve found it?

Good luck with your next interview.

By: Jo Bennett 

Criminal background checks are a popular screening tool for employers. More than 80 percent of U.S. employers perform criminal background checks on job applicants, according to a survey conducted by the Society of Human Resource Management. Technological advances have made the process of checking criminal backgrounds faster and cheaper, making the investment worthwhile for employers.
Employers have valid reasons for obtaining background checks. Chief among them is the desire to limit the company’s legal exposure for negligent hiring and retention claims. An employer could face legal liability if it hired an applicant with a violent criminal past who later, after hire, assaulted a customer. Employers also may be reluctant to hire someone with a criminal record relating to drug use, or to hire someone with a record of theft or crimes of dishonesty.
Although employers have many good reasons to make cautious hiring decisions, they also must be conscious of the legal pitfalls associated with policies that restrict employment based on a person’s criminal past. This is particularly true now because the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the agency that enforces federal anti-discrimination laws, has taken a keen interest in employer policies that restrict the hiring of individuals with a criminal past.
In February 2007, the EEOC launched its E-RACE (Eradicating Racism and Colorism in Employment) initiative. As part of that initiative, the EEOC has been holding public meetings on employers’ use of criminal records and is expected to issue new policy guidance on the subject. The agency also has filed a lawsuit against a staffing firm in Michigan, alleging that the firm maintained a policy that prohibited the hiring of any individual with a criminal background. In June, advocacy groups asked the EEOC to investigate Bank of America and Manpower, Inc. over job postings that allegedly told candidates not to apply if they had a criminal past.
The EEOC’s concern arises from statistics showing that African Americans and Hispanics are more likely than Caucasians to have a criminal record. Under federal anti-discrimination laws, an employer may be held liable for intentional and unintentional discrimination. Criminal background policies typically implicate unintentional discrimination under a disparate impact theory of liability. Under this legal theory, if an employer policy that is neutral on its face — that is, applies equally to all — has a disproportionate impact on a particular group, the employer may be culpable for discrimination. An employer may avoid liability only if it shows a “business necessity” for the policy.
Employers that have blanket restrictions on the hiring of felons may have a difficult time defending those policies. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the federal appellate court whose decisions apply in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware, has ruled that employer policies restricting employment based on a criminal history must “accurately distinguish between applicants that pose an unacceptable level of risk and those that do not.”
The Third Circuit established this rule in the case El v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transp. Authority, in which the plaintiff challenged a policy that prohibited the hiring of anyone with a conviction of “any crime of moral turpitude or violence against any person(s).” In El, the plaintiff, Douglas El, sought employment as a driver providing door-to-door and curb-to-curb transporation for people with mental and physical disabilities. He was hired contingent to the results of a criminal background check. When the report on El came back, it showed a 40-year-old murder conviction, prompting his termination.
The Third Circuit ruled in favor of the employer, which relied on expert testimony to articulate that its policy met the business necessity defense — that the policy was necessary to protect a vulnerable population. A criminologist for the defendant testified that former violent criminals are more likely than members of the general population to commit a future violent act. The Third Circuit also accepted the expert’s testimony that the employer’s policy as drafted distinguished as accurately as possible who was and who was not likely to commit future violent acts.
Even though the employer prevailed in the El case, the Third Circuit’s decision demands employers to rethink their criminal background policies. First, the Third Circuit rejected common-sense assertions of business necessity: “[E]mployers cannot rely on rough-cut measures of employment-related qualities.” Instead, the court found, in order to successfully defend its criminal background policy, an employer must demonstrate “some level of empirical proof that challenged hiring criteria accurately predicted job performance.”
Although the Third Circuit found that an employer’s criminal background policy did not have to be perfect, employers would be wise to review their policies and give thought to these questions: why they chose their policy, what research did they undertake before drafting the policy, and what is the business purpose for the structure of their policy. Similarly, when employers apply their policies, they should very carefully consider the relationship between the crime committed by the applicant and the job sought, and the likelihood that any harm would occur if they hired the applicant.
Jo Bennett, a shareholder in the Philadelphia office of Stevens & Lee, P.C., advises companies on equal employment opportunity matters in her consulting and litigation practice. This article is provided as general information only and should not be construed as, and does not constitute, legal advice on any specific matter. Professional advice should be sought on any specific situation.

A careless e-mail with a phrase like, ‘We’ll handle this situation differently than usual’ could be trouble if your company is sued. Here’s six ways to cut your risk.

NEW YORK (Fortune) — Dear Annie: I’m in HR at a medium-sized company that is being sued by an ex-employee who was laid off and is now alleging age discrimination. His lawyer has filed a discovery request that includes all of the e-mails of certain managers here over a given period of time, and this has got the whole place in an uproar. Our own attorneys are telling us we need a better e-mail policy, since all we have right now is the standard notice that the computer systems belong to the company and can be monitored at will.

My question is, do more detailed policies work? I really doubt that telling people what they can or can’t say in e-mails has any effect on their day-to-day behavior. I’d be interested to hear what you and your readers think. -No Name, Please

Dear NNP: Since the courts began including e-mails and text messages in the definition of “documents” a few years ago, says Andrea Bernard, a partner in employment law and litigation at Warner Norcross & Judd in Grand Rapids, Mich., “we’re seeing thousands upon thousands of electronic discovery requests - about as many as there are lawsuits” against companies.

“Unfortunately, there is this culture of carelessness about e-mail,” notes Bernard, who specializes in advising employers on e-mail policy. “People will write something in an e-mail that they would never dream of putting on paper on company letterhead. Yet these days, it is exactly the same thing.”

Adding to the difficulty is the fact that “people have laptops and cell phones that they take home with them at the end of the day, which means they’re even more likely to forget that they don’t own these things,” Bernard says. That proprietary feeling - “this is my laptop” - seems also to result in many people’s tendency to ignore that standard privacy warning you mention: “Employees are often genuinely shocked when a casual e-mail comes back to haunt them, especially as evidence in a lawsuit.”

They also may not know that lawyers frequently hire forensic computer experts who comb through huge volumes of e-mails looking for a smoking gun, in the form of certain words and phrases. A few of these: “I shouldn’t put this in writing but…”; “We’re going to handle this situation differently than we usually do…”; and “Delete this e-mail after you’ve read it.” Says Bernard: “That last one is my favorite, especially when the sender has copied 100 people on it.”

Bernard agrees with you that it’s unrealistic to expect that you can design an e-mail policy that covers every single contingency. “There is, however, a broad guideline you should urge upon your employees,” she says. “It’s this: Don’t put anything in an e-mail that you wouldn’t want your mother, a Wall Street Journal reporter, and 12 members of a jury to read.”

Six other suggestions for an effective e-mail policy:

1. Put it in writing. Your written policy should prominently feature that privacy warning you’re already using, plus a statement that the policy covers all electronic communication devices, including laptops and BlackBerrys. Then make sure every employee gets a copy of the written policy, and encourage people to ask questions about any part of it that is unclear.

2. Prohibit discriminatory or harassing e-mails. “Just as your company probably has rules against offensive humor or harassing behavior around the office water cooler, you’d be smart to spell out that the policy covers e-mails and texts as well,” Bernard says.

3. Advise against putting qualitative judgments in e-mails. Says Bernard, “If you encourage everyone to stick to the facts when e-mailing, you minimize your risk. When people start adding opinions like ‘What an idiot’ or ‘We really screwed up this time,’ you can get in real trouble.” She adds: “Never point fingers in an e-mail” - for example, “This is another boneheaded move on Terry’s part.” “Those fingers can end up pointing back at the company, and liability can result,” Bernard notes.

4. Advocate avoiding “conclusory” language. Phrases like “This could be seen as predatory pricing…” or “This could leave us open to liability…” should never appear in an e-mail. In court, the other side’s lawyers will be all over those remarks like a chicken on a junebug, even if you were just noodling around.

5. Remind employees to count to 100 before hitting “send.” E-mail fights can end up as fuel for the other side’s fire in a lawsuit. “It’s all right to formulate an angry message when you’re in the moment, but you should recommend that people sit on that for a few hours, cool off, and review it calmly before sending it,” Bernard says.

6. Discourage copying and forwarding with abandon. Suggest that people send e-mails only to people with a genuine need to see them (which has the happy side effect of cutting down on inbox clutter, too). If an e-mail reaches you that seems problematic - for instance, a colleague alleging that a government regulation is being violated - Bernard recommends closing the loop by replying, “Thanks for bringing this to our attention. We’ll take a look at it,” then forwarding it immediately to the appropriate manager and no one else.

In general, since it’s impossible to monitor every e-mail, “managers have to be vigilant,” Bernard notes. “When you see an inappropriate e-mail, speak with the person who sent it and remind him or her that this is the kind of thing that could cause trouble.”

“Bear in mind that the more detailed and complicated your policy is, the harder it will be to get people to comply,” she adds. “For example, we don’t recommend including a clause that says ‘No non-business use of the company’s computers’.” Why not? “There is such a tiny likelihood that anyone will obey it, you’re better off not having it,” Bernard explains. “And if you do have it, it has to apply to everyone, right on up to the CEO - and you really don’t want to go there.”

Have You Polished Your Elevator Speech?
presented by Dynamic Resumes
www.dynamicresumesofNJ.com
Most of you have heard of an “Elevator Speech”, right? The story goes something like this – let’s say you have an interview for a job you really want. You get into the elevator on the first floor of the building and find out the other person in the elevator is the head honcho who is going to have the final say in whether you get hired. You now have about 60 seconds to ride in the elevator with her to the top floor. When she finds out that you are the candidate under consideration, she seems curious about you. What “speech” can you give her in that elevator ride to peak her interest and ensure that you get the offer? Ahhhhh! If you don’t know, then you need to figure this out – and fast!You meet people all the time, especially if you are networking, attending professional organization meetings, and actively pursuing job leads. Sometimes, you really only have about an “elevator ride” worth of time to impress someone or not. So what can you do? Try to identify what you really want to market about yourself and what sets you apart out there. Think about the impacts and successes you have had in the last few years. What would your manager say about you? What value do you add? What do you want other networking professionals to remember about you? Practice your “elevator speech” out loud. Listen to other people’s answers when you ask them what they do – what impresses you? Who do you remember and why? These are not easy questions to answer – but investing some time and careful thought into your “elevator speech” can create a lot of opportunities for you. Best of Success!

TOWERS PERRIN’S GLOBAL WORKFORCE STUDY (2007-2008), the largest of its kind, identifies the drivers of attraction, retention and engagement through the eyes of employees at midsize to large organizations worldwide. The study measures employees’ rational, emotional and motivational connections to their companies and jobs to calculate their level of engagement and better understand how engagement affects behavior and performance.

The study also explores employees’ views about a broad array of workplace factors, including the actions and behavior of senior leadership and direct managers, and company culture, communication and various programs.

TOP FINDING: A SIGNIFICANT ENGAGEMENT GAP
Just 21% of the close to 90,000 respondents worldwide are engaged in their work, meaning they’re willing to go the extra mile to help their companies succeed. What’s perhaps more troubling, 38% are partly to fully disengaged.

The result is an “engagement gap” between the discretionary effort companies need and people actually want to invest, and companies’ effectiveness in channeling this effort to enhance performance.

The study also found that companies with the highest levels of employee engagement achieve better financial results and are more successful in retaining their most valued employees than companies with lower levels of engagement.

KEY INSIGHTS TO CLOSE THE GAP
1. The organization is the most powerful influencer of employee engagement.
2. There is no single “right model” for a high-performance culture; the most effective approach depends on an organization’s strategic priorities.
3. Employees are eager to invest more of themselves to help the company succeed, but want to understand what’s in it for them.
4. Senior leaders need to make the leap to a more inspirational and engaging style of leadership to help drive higher engagement.
5. Companies need to understand their employees as well as they understand their customers to design a work environment and experience that will drive higher engagement and performance.

THE FOCUS FOR SENIOR AND FUTURE LEADERS
Leaders and managers need to master a new set of abilities to engage their people and sustain and enhance performance, especially in today’s increasingly challenging business environment. The survey shows that senior leadership has a significant impact on engagement. The top engagement driver both globally and in the U.S. is employees’ belief that senior management has their best interests at heart. Yet, only about four out of 10 respondents believe this is true in their organizations. More than half also felt that senior management “treats us as just another part of the organization to be managed” or “as if we don’t matter.”

•  Senior leaders get relatively low marks on empathy, communication and transparency.

•  Managers — who help deliver the work experience and represent the pool of future leaders — also get low marks on key aspects of their role.

BOTTOM LINE
While leaders may have mastered the operational basics of their role, they need to do more to connect with and inspire the workforce. Turning people’s energy and ambition into engagement — and ultimately into significant performance lift — demands attention, focus and some very different behaviors from senior leaders, as well as clear follow-through on a number of organizational practices. The challenge for senior management is to recognize the value of employees’ untapped potential and to channel it in ways that yield real improvements in business performance.