A New Way to Think About Employee Productivity
Hello, LinkedIn Friend and Circular Leader,
Can you remember an optical illusion that surprised you? You stare at an image and it looks like this, and it looks like this, and...wait a minute!...now it looks like THAT! And then you can't unsee it.
Today's article is kind of similar.
Except this illusion radically impacts all of our organisations. For better or worse. As a Circular Leader, I know you want to be on the "better" side. So read on.
But first, click on the "Subscribe" button in the upper right corner. Thanks!
–Alex
A New Way to Think About Employee Productivity
Using a framework from 1872 is so, um, 1872...
In my?last article ,?I talked about 'humanistic' and 'mechanistic' views of the workplace. I urged you to look at your company and coworkers through a humanistic lens. Could you see the social dynamics and could you imagine how they might affect workplace performance?
In this article, let’s look at how this topic has evolved over time. This will help us develop a framework that we can use to help our employees do their best work.
We know that holding people accountable is important
Our framework starts by making sure that every employee has the essentials they need to do their job:
Employers have used this framework forever.
However, when we began measuring performance scientifically in the 1870s we found significant variances in performance that the framework couldn't account for. No matter how much we paid people or trained them or explained the goals to them, performance varied from day to day and team to team.
Managers found themselves frustrated by this mechanistic view. "I'm paying you well to do your job!” they might say. “What else could you possibly want?"
Managers who were limited to these four elements found that, once pay, tools and training were looked after, all that was left was goal setting and following up. However, this inevitably leads to?accountability loops?in which managers repeatedly say, "I need you to do this," and "Did you do it?" When the only topic of conversation is goal achievement, then any delays or mistakes or failures threaten the employee with blame or worse.
The basic framework, then, doesn't fully explain performance potential. Its limited perspective causes conflict between managers and staff. It frustrates managers who feel that employees could be more productive, and it unsettles employees who feel that they're being treated harshly or unfairly.
That said, goal-setting is a necessary part of performance, isn’t it?
Looking after our people is also necessary
Maslow's Theory of Human Motivation, published in 1943, identifies the psychological drivers of human behavior including recognition and trust. Maslow encourages us to add?human needs?to our framework.
Maslow's theory was largely ignored by business leaders because it was too soft, or it was unrelated to performance, or it was impractical because it couldn’t be measured. It seemed that human needs—in 1943—still had no place in the workplace.
This changed in the early 1990's. Daniel Goleman released his book,?Emotional Intelligence?and William Kahn introduced the concept of employee engagement. Employee engagement surveys appeared shortly thereafter and have become common management tools.
Human needs had finally entered the workplace through the front door and become part of the business lexicon.
领英推荐
However, linking employee engagement to employee productivity is difficult without very large datasets. Without accurate tools that measure their teams, managers are left to follow theoretical guidelines without understanding how they connect to team performance. For example, using perks to increase "employee enthusiasm" often results in little or no change to engagement and productivity.
Because of this, senior leaders often have little confidence in engagement as a tool to move their performance dials.
So, while many managers believe in supporting the people on their teams, the shortcomings of employee engagement can frustrate them. This leaves them back at the beginning: relying on the first four elements of the framework: pay, tools, training, and holding people accountable.
We must also consider social factors
Adding human needs to our framework?put us on the right track but we were still missing an element.
Clues to this missing element started being discussed in the 1920s in the Hawthorne Experiments. Managers at the Hawthorne plant of General Electric found that giving workers more rest breaks resulted in them having more social interactions which impacted mental attitudes which, in turn,?increased output levels.
Increased output levels – that ought to get some senior management attention! Our framework now looks like this:
It took a while, but in 1965, researchers Schein and Bennis built on the Hawthorne thinking by coining a new term,?psychological safety,?which combines human needs and social interactions. Psychological safety includes trust, belief in team member motives, and the ability to share ideas or ask for help.
Since then, Kahn (1990), Edmondson (1999), Google (2014) and many others have confirmed that psychological safety plays a significant role in team performance. When workers feel psychologically safe, they can collaborate better and achieve higher levels of success.
This makes intuitive sense to just about anyone who has sat in a classroom or worked in a group. Do you remember a class or a team where you felt more comfortable and more motivated and more productive? Psychological safety was likely higher in that group.
Psychological safety accurately measures the drivers of workplace behaviour better than employee engagement.
Where psychological safety is higher, it's more likely that team performance, customer satisfaction and employee turnover are better. Managers now have another powerful way to think about team productivity. By improving their team's psychological safety, their team's performance is also likely to improve.
The nature of work has radically changed
In 1872, 95% of people were hired to do manual work. Tools were simpler to understand and operate. Organizations were smaller and less complex. A simple management framework was all that was needed.
A lot has changed in 150 years! Now, 95% of employees work with their minds and tools are much more complicated. Even small organizations are more complex and collaboration is a necessary part of almost every job.
Managers must still identify goals and hold staff accountable. But to get the most from their people they must also support their human and social needs.
Want to know how much unrealized performance potential is in your organisation? Try this 30-second method.
Review these nine statements and remember the single highest number you agree with:
Well done! Now check your number against this rubric:
What did you think about today's article??Say 'hi' and share your comments and experiences at the bottom of the post.
Helping leaders invest in well-being, with a holistic lens, to prevent burnout. Founder, The Nourished Executive | Coach | Holistic Nutritionist | Mentor | Connector
1 年Another great article Alex Glassey The piece often that is missed is when organizations foster greater psychological safety, this is the competitive advantage. Really like the framework around the three cards.