Choose an employer of choice, one that attracts a select group of employees
Marcel JB Tardif, MBA
CEO - PerformInfo Inc. Auteur, Conférencier, Coach de dirigeants 26 519 abonnés + 3 900 post 560 articles
FORMULAS TOO OFTEN EMPTY OF MEANING
Rich Teerlink, CEO of Harley-Davidson, used to say: “Our people are our greatest source of competitive advantage” (1). This fine statement, true in Teerlink's own words, tends to become an empty formula when set against the actions of the managers who say it without reason to everyone (2). We must admit, and lament, the fact that many top managers are ready for any invocation (some would say incantation), when it comes to getting their staff to produce more. The unfortunate fact is that they give them less and less in the way of compensation, support, and training of all kinds, and, above all, recognition for their contribution to the work (3).
ENGAGE YOUR STAFF MORE RESOLUTELY IN ACTION (4)
One thing remains true, even if it's too often overused: it's the staff who make (who are, precisely because they “personalize”) the organization. At least in its execution, if not in its formulation and evaluation (5). Yet, if we want staff to produce better, more, and faster, they need to be more resolutely committed to the organization that employs them (6). More than that, the general conditions for carrying out the task must exist, facilitating their fulfillment as individuals (self-actualization or self-realization, as the case may be), so that they are resolutely committed to the task.
THE RISK OF SUPERFICIAL EXALTATION
The declarations made to staff, inflated by their high-octane content of superficial exaltation, are too often contradicted by the very actions of the managers who make them, to be considered credible in the eyes of the staff. The lack of sincerity on the part of managers in this respect is compensated for, despite themselves, by the appalling level of disengagement from the task on the part of staff. This is something that abundant research reveals, year after year, all over the world. This malaise is no mere coincidence. It is proof of a major shortcoming in the governance (directors) and management (executives) systems of organizations, both private and public. The lack of commitment on the part of employees is not due to their lack of interest in all work-related matters. On the contrary, for employees, the workplace represents the surest space-time for self-realization that they can find these days. The high rate of disengagement from the workplace stems from management's inconsistency (indeed, from their unsuitable management modes, methods, and practices) (7).
HIRE THE BEST POSSIBLE STAFF (8)
If the organization is to have the best possible production, both in terms of quantity and quality, the first step is to hire the best possible staff (9). But that's not where the prescription for organizational success ends. You need to be able to retain the best possible staff for the duration of the organization's useful life cycle. However, in both cases, the best staff cannot be the best producers if managers spend their time, as is all too often the case, discrediting everything that does not come directly from them (7). In other words, failing to give staff the credit they deserve, in terms of remuneration no doubt, but much more in terms of direct, ongoing participation in the decision-making process throughout the organization.
WORK LOYALTY IS ESTABLISHED, CONSOLIDATED AND EVALUATED... (11)
If an organization wants to stand out in its market of reference, it must know how to select, retain, recognize, and remunerate its staff in a competitive manner (12). Loyalty at work doesn't come from the pressure exerted on staff, with each passing quarter, to achieve ever more spectacular performance targets on assigned tasks. It is established, consolidated, and assessed by the organization's intelligent, consistent, and humane policies regarding the general conditions of task performance (13). And, in this respect, the example of commitment to doing better comes, again and again, from top management (14). And yet, staff turnover rates in a large majority of organizations (15) underline the extent to which consideration for staff is lacking (16). The problem doesn't necessarily stem from a faulty compensation or promotion system, but rather from work management modes, methods, and practices that are not aligned with the objective of performance above task. No organization has an interest in making work harder than it needs to be, for anyone. On the contrary, it's in everyone's interest to facilitate the execution of job mandates, thereby freeing up additional time for staff to contribute to their other projects. To achieve this, the organization will need to adopt work management policies that are more conducive to greater employee commitment to the task in hand. The organization wants to get the job done as well as possible (17). To ensure that work is carried out to the best of its potential contribution to optimal performance on the activity, the organization will focus on employment conditions that ensure self-actualization on the part of its staff. The best guarantee of commitment to the task lies in the very conditions under which the organization offers its staff the opportunity to fulfill their mandates. And the reader would be wrong to see this as circular reasoning. It confirms that performance on the job depends not on measures to control people and actions, but on policies to manage the context in which work is performed.
CHOOSING THE RIGHT PEOPLE DEPENDS ON CHOOSING THE RIGHT POLICIES
Choosing the right staff matters, both in terms of hiring and retention. In short, it matters both at the start and at the end of the activity. To be more efficient at their tasks, employees cannot operate in the absolute vacuum of an employment time space that has been configured without regard to their self-fulfillment needs. Employees experience their working space-time through the modes, methods, and practices of activity management implemented by the organization. These have a major influence on the staff's potential for self-fulfillment because they are the cornerstone of the organization's work climate. Vision, like mission and values, is important in situating staff within the overall market approach of the organization that employs them. But staff need even more, to consolidate their commitment to the organization and their task. They need transparency in governance, decentralization of decision-making power, recognition of work-related contributions, business ethics, fair treatment, and accountability assumed by all managers. All in all, there's no such thing as a good choice of personnel (18), in an organization... with a bad choice of work environment (context).
?
--------------------------------------------
?
REFERENCES:
1) Interview between Frederick F. Reichheld and Rich Teerlink, Master's class, Wellesley College, October 6, 1998, in Reichheld, F.F., (2001), Loyalty Rules! How Today's Leaders Build Lasting Relationships, Harvard Business School Press, p. 200.
?2) The farce to which this gives rise has the effect of arousing more cynicism in the workplace, where staff, who are constantly paying the price for the antics of their managers (those prone to frequent outbursts when it comes to mergers/acquisitions... at any price), are in no way fooled by the repeated inconsistency of their leaders, in word and deed.
领英推荐
?5) And yet, when it comes to formulating the organization (vision, mission, values, strategies, objectives, evaluation, etc.), employees remain the most reliable source of added value for optimum performance. It's a pity that so many managers underestimate, undervalue, and discredit them in so many ways, despite their words of self-interested consideration (solicitude that is more apparent than real). https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/%C3%A9mancipez-vos-organisations-marcel-jb-tardif-mba?trk=hp-feed-article-title-publish
?6) Staff commitment to the task is the measure of their probable motivation to work. https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/ne-freinez-pas-votre-personnel-motivez-le-marcel-jb-tardif-mba?trk=hp-feed-article-title-publish?
?7) Those who think that the author of this article places the “good guys” (staff) on one side, and the “bad guys” (management) on the other, are completely mistaken. The author advocates responsible management, which focuses on people as the driving force behind activity, thought, and projects in a competitive organization. It's through the asserted conjunction of the interests of the primary stakeholders in the activity, i.e. the members of staff, that the organization will find its optimum level of efficiency, and therefore of economic utility for the community of customers it serves. https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/tailler-des-croupi%C3%A8res-marcel-jb-tardif-mba?trk=hp-feed-article-title-publish
?9) Hiring techniques are generally flawed from the outset. No wonder, then, that organizations eventually find themselves stuck with people unsuited to their culture, structure, and business. And once in place, the least mobile - and therefore least desirable in terms of competence compared to the job - will hang on to stay employed. This complicates matters because their presence adds nothing to the organization's capacity to innovate but does add heavily to its relative degree of competitive inertia.
?10) And the “control” approach, to people and actions, is a perfect illustration of the lack of trust necessary for staff to become more committed to their work. The lack of trust this policy (attitude) creates results in a proportional disengagement among those who want to perform a task autonomously. It's autonomy at work that generates innovation and therefore added competitive capacity within the organization.
?12) Although remuneration is not a factor in work motivation, it does create dissatisfaction when it is not competitive (sufficient, on a basis of fair comparison in the market). Compensation therefore plays a major role at the hiring stage, as it does later to a lesser degree if other employment conditions are superior to what exists elsewhere. Note that satisfaction and dissatisfaction, as Herzberg established, are not on the same continuum. They are two orders of state, responding to different conditions, which must not be set against each other.
?14) When it comes to recognition, we often talk about peers. But in recognition, as in behavior models, we rarely talk about subordinates. The measure of improvement is always sought at the level of superiors. There's nothing to suggest, however, that it isn't automatically found there every time.
?15) We're not talking about the public sector, where fidgeting is a veritable circus.
?18) By the way, bad staffing is only the mirror image of management in the organization. The problem isn't “down there”, it's “up here”.
?