Jun. 11, 2018 "Why it really takes for an employee to be engaged": Today I found this article by Merge Gupta-Sunderji in the Globe and Mail:
Leadership speaker and consultant, founder of Turning Managers Into Leaders
When was the last time you washed a rental car? Probably never. And the reason is simple: You don’t own it.
This simple reality offers a compelling insight into why some leaders are able to engage their employees with enthusiasm, and others are not. Employee engagement is all the rage nowadays: Companies are conducting in-depth surveys, consulting firms and leadership gurus are offering scads of advice.
But, at the end of the day, employee engagement is about one simple word: ownership. Do your employees feel as if they have a vested interest in the short-term outcomes and the long-term success of your organization?
But, at the end of the day, employee engagement is about one simple word: ownership. Do your employees feel as if they have a vested interest in the short-term outcomes and the long-term success of your organization?
Keep in mind that ownership in the context of employee engagement doesn’t necessarily mean that your people need to have actual share ownership or a financial investment in your organization. It does, however, mean that they care deeply about what you do, why you do it and how your customers feel about your products or services.
And when employees believe that what they do matters and makes a difference, they have ownership – that’s employee engagement.
And when employees believe that what they do matters and makes a difference, they have ownership – that’s employee engagement.
So, what exactly does it take to create this degree of engagement; this level of interest and ownership that would get your employees to not just wash the cars, but also check the oil and rotate the tires?
It’s certainly not coming from high-level strategic engagement initiatives developed by senior management at the annual planning retreat. Nor is it a slew of engagement policies developed by a small army of bureaucrats in a backroom somewhere. Engagement happens at an individual level, employee by employee, and as a direct result of the one-on-one relationships each employee has with their immediate and direct supervisors.
It’s certainly not coming from high-level strategic engagement initiatives developed by senior management at the annual planning retreat. Nor is it a slew of engagement policies developed by a small army of bureaucrats in a backroom somewhere. Engagement happens at an individual level, employee by employee, and as a direct result of the one-on-one relationships each employee has with their immediate and direct supervisors.
All of which means that if you’re a manager, supervisor, team leader or any other title that has direct responsibility for people, then your behaviour and actions will unequivocally determine how engaged each of your employees are. This is a weighty responsibility, one that you should not take lightly. So here, then, are four specific things you can do to engage, really engage, your employees.
Get to know them
Take the time to understand your people at more than just a superficial level. Find out about them, and who and what they love, both professionally and personally. When you know more about their kids, their pets, their hobbies, their career goals, their long-term hopes and desires, not only do you get a deeper understanding of what drives them, but you also build a relationship.
And when things go awry in the day-to-day world of work, it is these very relationships that will encourage your employees to roll up their sleeves and help you determine what went wrong and how to fix it. This is ownership.
And when things go awry in the day-to-day world of work, it is these very relationships that will encourage your employees to roll up their sleeves and help you determine what went wrong and how to fix it. This is ownership.
Praise them
And don’t just praise benign generalities, but recognize specifics. Whether your employee stayed late, went above and beyond to solve a critical issue, helped a co-worker or followed through on a commitment to a customer, be specific in your appreciation. And it’s absolutely fundamental for that praise to be valuable – you can’t just think about it; you must verbalize your praise to the employee.
Praise and recognition don’t count unless you actually say it, out loud, to the person concerned. When praise is specific and timely, you will see employee engagement.
Praise and recognition don’t count unless you actually say it, out loud, to the person concerned. When praise is specific and timely, you will see employee engagement.
Trust them
You hired your employees because they’re proficient at what they do. So trust them to use their good judgment to assess known risks and make decisions. Will they always get it right? Probably not, as hindsight always proves some decisions to be suboptimal.
Nevertheless, give your people the flexibility to act. They have the knowledge and skills to determine when and how things need to be done, so let them. When you trust your employees, you permit them to take ownership. And when they take ownership, they’re engaged.
Nevertheless, give your people the flexibility to act. They have the knowledge and skills to determine when and how things need to be done, so let them. When you trust your employees, you permit them to take ownership. And when they take ownership, they’re engaged.
Invest in them
The ultimate indicator of your commitment to employees is when you invest time and resources into helping them grow. This happens when you give them chances to learn and opportunities to progress, or when you give them access to expert mentors or you grant them the ability to stand up and keep going, even after they fail.
In the process, you create ownership. Funny thing: When you commit to your employees, remarkably, they commit back to you. Ownership equals engagement.
In the process, you create ownership. Funny thing: When you commit to your employees, remarkably, they commit back to you. Ownership equals engagement.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/careers/management/article-what-it-really-takes-for-an-employee-to-be-engaged/
For employers: Take a look at how high-level employees are treated, and then aim to reduce the disparity between those and the rank-and-file employees.
The latter may not be told about inequity but know it's there.It is a two-way street. Return value for value given but not in a way that demotivates others (i.e., avoid "rank-and-yank" system popular in some US corps).
The latter may not be told about inequity but know it's there.It is a two-way street. Return value for value given but not in a way that demotivates others (i.e., avoid "rank-and-yank" system popular in some US corps).
the average worker sees none of this. the real world is harsh and unforgiving in the Canadian work place .
Ownership is ownership - a share in the company.
By the way, it never works in the long term anyway, unless the employee is a dud, in which case, why do you want them as your employee?
The title of this article should be, "What it really takes to trick an employee into being engaged."
I would ad Share information, but otherwise, as a retired manager who supervised hundreds of employees over decades, I can attest that this recipe works - with most employees. Engagement is a bit of a two way street though. The real challenge is engaging the minority of employees for whom nothing seems to work. Recruitment strategies should include engagement potential as a qualification.
Jun. 13, 2018 "Older workers set to benefit from Human Rights Tribunal ruling": Today I found this article by Jared Lindzon in the Globe and Mail:
Jun. 13, 2018 "Older workers set to benefit from Human Rights Tribunal ruling": Today I found this article by Jared Lindzon in the Globe and Mail:
Alandmark Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario ruling, which recently determined that cutting or reducing benefits for workers over the age of 65 amounts to discrimination, is expected to have significant implications for older workers from coast to coast.
After more than a year and a half of deliberation, the tribunal decided in favour of Brantford teacher Steve Talos, who was taken off the Grand Erie District School Board’s benefits plan upon reaching the age of 65. On May 18, the tribunal determined that doing so violates Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees Canadians protection from discrimination on the basis of age.
“The tribunal found, five years ago, that the legislation allows the Grand Erie District School Board to do what it did, and the only way this could possibly move forward and be successful was if we challenged the legislation itself,” said Jamie Melnick, who represented Mr. Talos in the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal case. “This decision I believe is the first decision in Canadian history that has found in favour of the applicant on the basis of age discrimination under the Constitution.”
While the Grand Erie District School Board has 45 days following the ruling to appeal the decision, and although it only directly applies to the one province, legal experts believe it will have implications across the country. “Even if they do appeal it, the decision itself is huge, because it sends a signal to both the legislature and particularly large employers that have full cost-capture for insurance benefits that the writing is on the wall,” Mr. Melnick said.
Kimberly Newhouse, the manager of communications and community relations for the Grand Erie District School Board, says the organization “will have to take some time and consult with our legal counsel” before determining whether or not to appeal, adding that they respect the decision made by the tribunal and that their employees’ benefits are now handled by the Provincial Benefits Trust.
Employment and labour lawyers across the country have been eagerly anticipating the Ontario tribunal’s ruling. “We have a remarkably similar piece of legislation with our human rights code,” Vancouver-based labour and employment lawyer Leo McGrady said.
Mr. McGrady says the conditions that led to the Talos case are similar in most provinces, as many have shared roots in the fight to end mandatory retirement in the 1990s. “The provinces went in domino fashion to ban mandatory retirement, but they all preserved this vestige [addressing insurance and benefits] of the seventies and eighties,” he said.
When mandatory retirement was deemed unconstitutional, employers successfully argued it was cost prohibitive to insure this new cohort of older workers, Mr. McGrady says. While the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario rejected that argument in the Talos decision, it did leave room for some employers to make a case on the basis of unsustainable costs, particularly those with a smaller work force.
“This doesn’t mean that small and medium-sized employers will be forced to give benefits,” Mr. Melnick explained. “What it would mean is that small and medium employers can’t just rely on the legislation; they would have to fall back on the standard defence, which is that it’s actually cost prohibitive, and they can’t provide benefits without undue hardship.”
Mr. McGrady, Mr. Melnick and other legal professionals have spent years arguing that the additional costs don’t amount to undue hardship for larger employers with group benefits packages and should not be considered “reasonable limits” under Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The situation is also similar for workers in industries that fall under federal jurisdiction, such as transportation, finance and communications. “Technically. the Ontario decision from the human rights tribunal is not a precedent that is binding on the federal jurisdiction, but it certainly will be influential,” said Raymond Hall, a B.C.-based humanrights lawyer and former Air Canada pilot.
Mr. Hall says he also watched the Talos case closely, having argued against the mandatory retirement age enforced by his former employer before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.
“I love the decision because I love the detail in the reasoning,” he said. “It’s very thorough and canvasses the entire scope of Charter issues that affect individuals who have been historically disadvantaged by age discrimination.”
While he often represents commercial airline pilots, Mr. Hall says the Talos decision will most affect those who have experienced disruptions in their career, such as immigrants, the disabled, part-time workers and women who have taken time off of work to have children.
He explains that these historically disadvantaged groups are less likely to be in a position to retire comfortably by the age of 65 and are more likely to be reliant on their employee benefits.
He explains that these historically disadvantaged groups are less likely to be in a position to retire comfortably by the age of 65 and are more likely to be reliant on their employee benefits.
“What this decision stands for is that it’s not acceptable for employers to routinely and categorically take away benefits from older workers,” said Renu Mandhane, the Chief Commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Council. “The decision is important because it sends a message that older workers are equally valuable, that they’re equal
contributors in the work force.”
No comments:
Post a Comment