"Does your organization treat it's customers better than it's work force?"/ "Build morale by giving employees a say in corporate giving"

Dec. 21, 2018 "Does your organization treat it's customers better than it's work force?": Today I found this article by Andrew Au in the Globe and Mail:

President, Intercept Group

We’ve come a long way with engaging customers. We’ve learned to walk in customers’ shoes to understand their needs and embraced big data to personalize our approach. And we’re now learning how to leverage artificial intelligence to predict needs they don’t even know they have.

Compare this evolution with workplace culture. 

As an employee, are you being listened to? 

Has your organization made advances in personalizing their approach with you? 

Has it invested in programs to boost engagement?

As organizations, we’ve become so customer-obsessed that we’ve depreciated one of our strongest assets – our human capital.

How common is bad culture?

The reality is that no organization is immune to the culture conundrum.

According to research firm Gallup, roughly seven of 10 employees in the workforce are disengaged. The modern workplace is far different from that of past generations, which featured homogenous employee bases that prized stability and a “job for life” with well-defined benefits upon retirement.

 Today, workplaces are more diverse than ever before. Different generations with unique ways of communicating now work side-by-side. Companies have to cope with four separate generations (Boomers, Gen X, millennials, and Gen Z) who come to work each day with different goals, modes of communication and expectations.

The challenge to keep morale high is more difficult than ever. As the pace of business accelerates, employee highs are higher and lows are lower, and they’re happening much faster than before.

Signs of bad culture

There are three main signs of concern when evaluating culture.

1. Heroic leadership: Senior leadership burns the midnight oil and highlights it as if it were an achievement. They send the message that independent contribution is more important than team collaboration.
2. Wasted resources: Your organization has procured a series of innovative tools and platforms, yet less than 10 per cent of teams are using them. Powerful data and tools go under-utilized or unused.
3. Excuses over solutions: You hear these three toxic words echoing within your organization: “I can’t because … .” Process is used as a shield and an excuse to preserve the status quo.

Using experiences to solve the culture conundrum

We live in the experience economy where great experiences trump material things. Thomas Gilovich, a psychology professor at Cornell University, has spent more than 20 years researching the reason why experiences elicit more happiness than buying material things. He explains, “Our experiences are a bigger part of ourselves than our material goods. You can really like your material stuff.

 You can even think that part of your identity is connected to those things, but nonetheless, they remain separate from you. In contrast, your experiences really are part of you. We are the sum total of our experiences.”

Simply put, it’s about aligning the right experience with the right moments throughout the year. Here are three principles you can apply to do just that within your organization:

1. Measure. As part of a balanced scorecard or objectives and key results (OKRs), identify key results that reflect cultural health. Metrics should be captured on a regular cadence.
2. Sequence. Take a proactive strategy to building your annual employee engagement plan. Consider the seasonality of your workflow and its impact on morale, and plan experiences accordingly. Experiences should cover everything from learning and development to fun and entertainment to team bonding and collaboration.
3. Connect. It’s important to connect experiences back to the core values of your organization. Remind your employees why they come to work for your organization and your team. An alignment of values is more important than a salary.

1 day ago

Usually in organizations where one or all of the parties like customers, employees and management are in captive situation, people mistreat each other because they can not exit and so the corrections can not happen.

So where are these places: government jobs, schools, healthcare, corporations which have little competition and have captive markets, either the customer is captive or the company, either way.

The workflow stuff may help if the differences are marginal but it won't solve the big issues that involve cost and services if the difference in expectations vary widely.

That is why small everything works better rather giant structures. There is more variation and competition and more flexibility.

1 day ago

The big structures need smaller units and few variations within the structures to allow for for diversity in delivery.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/careers/leadership/article-does-your-organization-treat-customers-better-than-you-the-employee/

1 year ago

Usually in organizations where one or all of the parties like customers, employees and management are in captive situation, people mistreat each other because they can not exit and so the corrections can not happen. 

So where are these places: government jobs, schools, healthcare, corporations which have little competition and have captive markets, either the customer is captive or the company, either way. 

The workflow stuff may help if the differences are marginal but it won't solve the big issues that involve cost and services if the difference in expectations vary widely. That is why small everything works better rather giant structures. There is more variation and competition and more flexibility.

1 year ago

The big structures need smaller units and few variations within the structures to allow for for diversity in delivery.

"Build morale by giving employees a say in corporate giving": Today I found this article by Daniel Skarlicki in the Globe and Mail:

Daniel Skarlicki is the Edgar F. Kaiser professor of organizational behaviour, Marketing and Behavioural Science Division, UBC Sauder School of Business

Savvy business leaders have long understood that when employees feel valued and fulfilled, they’re also more productive. So it’s no surprise that they offer all kinds of programs and perks, from flexible hours to plum assignments, and from casual days to holiday bonuses.

But many don’t realize that sometimes doing things outside that employer-employee relationship can also boost morale, and if employees have a say in the process, the benefits can be even more profound.

Corporate social responsibility, or CSR, is defined as actions that promote social good beyond the immediate interest of a company and its shareholders, and also beyond what is required by law. 

This can include things like sponsoring a new city park, launching green initiatives, setting up an employee assistance program, seconding an employee to a charitable organization, or making improvements to safety and working conditions that are far greater than what regulations demand.

Studies have shown that when employees are working for an organization that they see is contributing to society, they tend to feel their jobs are more meaningful, because even if their work isn’t directly tied to those CSR initiatives, it is helping to fuel that greater good. It also helps drive what we call the norm of reciprocity: when employees see their company going above and beyond, they are more likely to follow suit.

But it turns out that effect is amplified even more when employees have a sense of autonomy and a say in their company’s CSR activities. In a recent study, we surveyed nearly 700 full-time employees from five regions – Canada, Singapore, France, China and Hong Kong – and found that, just as workers feel more engaged when they have autonomy in their jobs, they feel more fulfilled when they have a voice in their employers’ broader social initiatives.

This is especially true in areas that tend to have more individualistic values, such as North America and Europe.

These findings have several implications for business. Corporations tend to think about CSR as an activity that helps the outside world, but social engagement clearly pays off in terms of employee engagement, too. As a result it’s all the more important that companies not only take on philanthropic projects, but that they make sure their employees are aware of them, and even have a hand in choosing them.

For example, the Vancouver credit union Vancity has built its brand on its charity and community works, and invites its employees and members to submit and vote on possible projects. Similarly, Mountain Equipment Co-op’s community initiatives and social purpose permeate through the organization, making it a highly desirable place to work.

Organizations with CSR initiatives that are developed with employee input can be especially important to millennials, who tend to place immense value on working for organizations that participate in social causes, to the point where it significantly influences the employers they select.

The approach is not without potential downsides: if the employees see the charitable moves as corporate window dressing, they are less likely to get behind them, so the motivation and execution must be seen as genuine; also, employees who participate may feel frustrated if something they suggest doesn’t get a green light. That’s why it’s essential for employers to explain the rationale behind their decisions and keep workers informed and involved.

Some businesses feel that CSR initiatives are too costly and onerous; they have a product or service to sell and they need to focus on profit.

The challenge is that if profitability is a company’s sole concern, employees are more likely to be unsatisfied, burn out, and move elsewhere, which can impede the business’ prospects for long-term growth. In other words, skipping on good corporate citizenship in an effort to save money may provide savings in the short-term, but can prove far more costly in the long run.

What’s more, many business leaders often assume that improving our societies, and addressing the world’s problems is the responsibility of governments; but that is both untrue and unrealistic.

Businesses have immense wealth, power and reach, and must step up, get involved, and set an example – both within their business communities and within their organizations.

Not only will it pay off in terms of the world we live in: it will make for a more satisfied workforce and a healthier bottom line – and leaders who set the best example will almost surely come out ahead.

Daniel Skarlicki is the co-author, along with Deborah E. Rupp of Purdue University, Ruodan Shao of City University of Hong Kong, E. Layne Paddock of ETH Zurich, Tae-Yeol Kim of China Europe International Business School, and Thierry Nadisic of Emlyon Business School, of “Corporate Social Responsibility and Employee Engagement: The Moderating Role of CSR-Specific Relative Autonomy and Individualism,” which recently appeared in the Journal of Organizational Behavior.

23 hours ago

Love this article. We see more and more companies live by this philosophy - participating in Ride to Conquer Cancer, OneWalk to Conquer and Road hockey to Conquer Cancer are all employee led choices to which corporations are helping support.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/careers/leadership/article-how-getting-employees-involved-in-giving-can-produce-big-dividends/

Dec. 14, 2019 My opinion: Here is a charity article for the holiday season.