What Queen Elizabeth can teach us about Employee Engagement

Last week, a pal from high school posted her engagement on Facebook. I’ve not seen her in years, but this was big news. I’m in my forties; most everyone is past this stage and their kids aren’t quite there yet. Of course, I’m in HR, so it got me thinking about employee engagement, which, like the marriage kind, is about knowing where you are heading and committing to it; understanding that it may be hard, but being compelled by what you will gain.

Queen Elizabeth is celebrating her Diamond Jubilee. Sixty years on the throne! This is a very wealthy woman who could get away doing a lot less than the hundreds of appearances, charitable activities and state events she completes each year. She’s engaged, and we can take a few lessons from her:

“Begin with the end in mind”: Do I sound dated quoting Steven Covey? Don’t care! He got it right. The key to engagement is starting with a clear view of what is ahead. Queen Elizabeth was born and raised knowing what her future might hold and had lots of time to understand why it mattered. In today’s “buyers’ market” for talent, there’s a temptation to skip over the sell; employees and prospective employers should be grateful for a job. In fact, it is now more important than ever to focus every employee and prospect on what the company, the team and their job/prospective role is all about. A tough economy calls for clarity, focus and excellence from every player on the team.

“Respect the individual”:  Not everyone in Britain believes in the monarchy, or agrees with everything it represents. Despite this, the Queen relies on certain courtesies. Respect for the individual is a core value, or at least claimed, but some companies fail to recognize how this fuels engagement. Most employees understand that times change, and they may be asked to produce more and adapt over time. Many understand that their employers can’t promise raises, promotions or even continued employment in today’s market. No matter the challenges, respect can always be offered in the workplace. You don’t need to bow, curtsy or call your people “Ma’am”, just listen to them, share openly and frequently, treat them fairly and do as you say.     

“Work hard”: Katie Couric asked a member of the Queen’s staff, “….400 events a year and there are only 365 days. Do you ever ask her to take it easy?” After an uncomfortable giggle, the answer was “no”. Too often, employees are constrained by managers, co-workers, unions and HR departments. Employers need to strike a balance between focus and constraint: employees are in it to win, and they demand license to exceed expectations.

“Celebrate”: I’m pretty sure that Queen Elizabeth could live happily without ever attending another party or ball. I’m sure she has enough jewels, has knighted enough luminaries, bestowed enough medals and invited enough celebrities to tea. She doesn’t stop, though, and I’ve even seen pics of her chatting with Lady Gaga! The Olympics are in London this summer, so Britain really doesn’t need another reason to celebrate, but celebrate it will! Queen Elizabeth won’t get a raise in her allowance for reaching 60 years, (in fact, she’s reduced her spending in respect of austerity measures). She will get a parade, and there will be many parties which she will never reach or see. Engaged employees are supported by celebration and recognition, and it doesn’t just impact their personal commitment, but draws others into the fold.

 Four simple steps to a “royally engaged” workforce!

Engagement with a Vengeance

Have you seen the movie The Avengers? While I'm generally more inclined toward romantic comedies, I had occasion to see the film this past week. I'm sure there are a myriad of fables in this Marvel masterpiece, but I was struck by the film's message on employee engagement.

You see, there are these super-heroes. They are all completely involved in their own agenda. They understand their skills and capabilities. They understand each other's skills and capabilities and, in some cases, flaws and opportunities. What they don't understand, at first, is why they should put themselves out there. Why should they take a risk? In some cases this is a "what's in it for me", while in others it's a "I don't think I can succeed" obstacle.

Then it gets personal. Each of the super-heroes has a reason to get involved, and they pull together as a team and win.

And that's the lesson. Corporate Social Responsibility efforts are on the rise because people care about improving the world more than they care about shareholder dividends. Passion "to do" can be driven by passion to "do good".

I love the new GE commercials. There is one where we learn that GE doesn't make beer, but makes the machines that make it possible to make beer, and, at least for the folks in the ad, that's something worth working for!

Speaking with HR leaders, I hear a lot about employee engagement. Primarily, I hear about "our score" and whether it is trending up or trending down. Very rarely do I hear a concise or clear description of the company's goal. Engaged employees can succeed with a vengeance, if they know what it is they are fighting for! Perhaps it's time for HR to focus less on reporting the score and to spend more time defining what game is being played?

Testing Performance Review

Testing Performance Review

Last week, the New York City Department of Education released a database containing the historical standardized math and reading test scores for teachers whose students complete these tests. While hailed by many (see New York Times) as an heroic first step in teacher accountability, others see this as more political posturing. A stormy debate is raging over teacher performance and accountability; a debate with some worthwhile insight for corporate performance management!

Measure what Matters

Do test scores matter? Whether the tests referenced are useful predictors of future success or not, they do guide the schools, programs and opportunities available to pupils. For this reason alone, it makes sense to evaluate teachers, at least in part, on the scores their students attain. Should teachers, then, “teach to the test”? There are probably a lot of reasons they shouldn’t, BUT (yes- a big BUT), if teachers are evaluated on the basis of test scores, then they will "teach to the test". Wouldn't you?

Accountable for Controllable

Teachers rarely pick the students they teach. Teachers rarely work with a student group for more than a single academic year. Shouldn't the metric be the delta or 'change in score' year over year rather than the students' raw scores? If Johnny scored in the 49th percentile, and we hold Mrs. Apple accountable for that score, we've got to assume that Mrs. Apple is less competent than 51% of the teachers, BUT (another big BUT) if Johnny scored in the 40th percentile the year before, then Mrs. Apple had a positive impact of +9 percentile points in one year. Looking at it this way, Mrs. Apple may well be a star teacher!

Informed for Action

The rationale for publishing the scores is empowerment of parents and taxpayers. If public funds are being used, shouldn't we know how well they are being used? Well yes, we should. The average test scores of students taught by a teacher is, however, a great deal different than an Assemblyman’s voting record. The Assemblyman’s record is entirely ‘in his control’ and (a big AND) voters who have this information can take decisive and meaningful action with this information (vote for or against in the next election). How will parents and taxpayers use the test score information? Parents and taxpayers aren’t empowered to hire and fire teachers, (and, as we all know, even principals and School Boards are vexed in this regard by the UFT J). Should parents be allowed to decide which teacher will teach their kids? Can you imagine the administrative requirements?  Assuming it could work (parents selecting their children’s teacher), it is reasonable to assume that kids with parents who get them into a good classroom are likely to score higher than kids with parents who don’t bother. In the end, test score differences are likely to say little about the students or the teachers, and most about the parents. This is not conjecture, but supported by research: involved and interested parents raise kids who perform better academically.

Good Performance Management

I’m not opposed to making these scores available, just as I’m not opposed to sharing a customer accolade or complaint at the workplace. It’s good practice to share point-in-time results to spur discussion and exploration. It’s just not a viable performance management approach. The public school system exists to build good citizens, and that requires a good math score and a whole lot more. Alice may score in the 99^th percentile but be dealing drugs in the playground. We need Alice’s teacher to be focused on her math class and the playground (nice if her parents are engaged as well). A good performance management system looks at results, behaviors and skills applied across all relevant job requirements. The New York City Department of Education has allowed the public insight to only one small component of each teacher’s performance. It’s shocking for me to agree with the UFT, but, in this matter I believe the City has unleashed an unwieldy force that is likely to make managing teacher performance and accountability a whole lot harder in the weeks and months ahead.  

Exactly What It Says On The Tin.....

Ed arrived at work RAVING about his new Gillette razor. It actually provided a clean, smooth shave. He was so pleased he bought shares in the company.



I bought a Mr. Clean Magic Eraser and was absolutely blown away by its impact on my flat's scuffed walls; it really did work like magic!



Why are we so surprised when our experience is “Exactly What It Says on the Tin”?

1.     We're tech-savvy: Technology has expanded our definition of "truth in advertising". We bought applicant tracking software in the early nineties. A few days after installation, we discovered that applicants were being dropped from the database. We were told it was "a glitch”. The provider hoped to have a solution in a few months and would provide it with the next release. I am reminded of this at least once every week, when my Adobe or Windows updates are applied. We’ve grown accustomed to getting something that is "very nearly what it says on the tin".

2.     We’re outsourcers: I recently met with an organization that retained a search firm to fill several critical roles. The organization’s leadership is insanely busy, so they hired a consultant to liaise with the search firm. Is it even remotely surprising to learn that they have had several “finalists” prove unsuccessful in leadership interviews? The best outsourcing providers will tell you that they are only successful when they integrate fully with their clients. We’re so reliant on others that we fail to do our part to get “what I think it says on the tin.”

3.     We’re in a rush: We’ve recently moved to a ‘full service’ building. Trash and recycling is handled by the building’s fabulous service team. Of course, we need to separate our disposables; bottles and cans go on a shelf; boxes and cardboard on the floor; paper in the bin; trash down the chute. My neighbor stood by the refuse closet attempting to categorize and store all items for several minutes, then sighed, dropped all his trash in a sack and shoved it down the chute. “Who has the time?” he queried. We’re in such a rush to get it done we have “no idea what it says on the tin.”

Want to get exactly what it says on the tin?

1.     Be smart: Learn what it really ‘says on the tin’ and determine if the product/service is really what you need.

2.     Integrate: Outsourcing, even delegation, can not only expand your capacity, but also your knowledge base. Don’t assume, however, that your provider knows all that you know; effective outsourcing is not reliant on division but integration and teaming.

3.     Invest the time: For the first time in a long time, farmers are making money. Take a lesson from those who grow for a living; cultivation takes time. Invest in understanding what is in the tin, and whether it really does work for you.

Listen or Anticipate?

I was strolling downtown on 9th Avenue in New York yesterday, catching up on all the change since I last made this great little island my home. I noticed how much things have changed; the stores are trendy and everyone on the street is staring at their phone! Despite all the gentrification in the Meat Packing District, I was delighted to see an old store sign from my youth. Wandering into the Italian deli where my best High School buddy and I would go to 'pack on some pasta' after a busy day at the stores, I was disappointed. This was not the 'deli with Formica tables' I remembered, but an upscale sandwich shop. There was no 'old world' vibe. I couldn't smell the garlic, or even a hint of that marinara my pal Meri had loved.




After being stared down by the counter staff (no one asked if they could help or said 'Hello'), I opted to forego any purchase. My trip down memory lane had been thwarted. Imagine my delight then, when I saw the deli I remembered right next door. I pulled the door ajar and was greeted by the lovely aroma of olive oil, garlic and parmesan; exactly as I remembered. Like the store of the same name next door, there was not a customer in sight, but, I reasoned, it was three in the afternoon; too early for dinner and too late for lunch. I approached the counter in anticipation; would they have fresh mozzarella for me to take home? Was the eggplant parmesan as wonderful as I remembered?



The lady behind the counter looked up, and I said “Oh, I hope you’re not closing this side. The other side is so fancy now!”



I am still stunned by the storm this unleashed! “Get out of here. How dare you insult me like that? I know exactly what you are up to, the whole lot of you! Get out of here. You think you are cute, eh?” As she made her way around the counter toward me, screaming and holding a large ...ladle? ...knife? I explained that I meant no insult; that I was just trying to buy some mozzarella; that she had mis-understood as I was complimenting her store. It was no use, though, she was livid and loud and a bit threatening so I just kept backing away until I reached the street.



After calls to a few friends, I learned that the two stores are competing, under the same name; the legacy of a falling-out between two brothers. They don’t talk, they do fight for business and, I am told, they do send people to taunt each other with some regularity. It’s likely I was mistaken for an emissary of the enemy!



I feel bad about what happened; my reminiscence was thwarted and there’s a good chance the lack of customers in either establishment reflected their surly vibe rather than the time of day! The remainder of my journey offered a chance to think about ‘anticipation’. Clearly, the lady in the store anticipated a jibe and therefore failed to listen; she not only misinterpreted my words but she ignored all the other signals (body language, big smile). She chased off a customer (to be honest, she was pretty threatening) because she was over-prepared. On reflection, she wasn’t the only ‘over-prepared’ salesperson I’d encountered:

• The car salesman entirely ignored my requirements description, asking me to tell him what model I currently drive. He then suggested a high-end car with sports traction even though I’d said I was looking for a basic commuter car that would be good for potholes and city parking.

• The bartender at the restaurant failed to offer me a food menu and instead handed me a cocktail list at noon, even though he’d seen the hostess seat me at the bar apologizing as they had no tables available for me to dine at solo.

We are told to anticipate customer needs; to forecast the customer’s requirements, plan for and produce against them. What happens, however, when ‘anticipation’ becomes formulaic and we forget to watch for clues? I called the car salesman and asked him about our meeting. I wanted to know why he’d asked me about the car I drive instead of responding to the requirements I listed. What he told me may not surprise, but it is a cautionary tale. He told me that he’d learned that most customers don’t actually want, and even less frequently buy, the car they describe. He said he’d seen statistics in his training, and had been shown that leading a prospect to a car that was very much like or very different from their current vehicle was the most effective way to sell a car. Does he listen to what his customers tell him? “Honestly, not when they first come in. I spend most of that time sizing them up based on their clothes and the way they talk. The only thing I really pay attention to is who they say will drive the car. Then I ask what they drive and whether they like it, and I go from there.”



Of course, the other thing I noted on my walk was the huge number of people about to trip as they focused on their phone screens. Today’s smart phones have almost eliminated the need to call anyone; you can text a meeting place, send a photo, even ‘group vote’ on which restaurant is most convenient for dinner. Listening is fast becoming an antiquated skill. The car salesman is fairly successful skipping over listening, though he does note there are several ‘unspoken clues’ he garners from his customers. The lady at the deli is clearly neither listening nor watching for clues; her anticipation is clearly driving customers away.



Is there a future for listening to anticipate customer needs? Hope so. Maybe they’ll create ‘an app for that’.

Content, Context and Awards

With a daughter studying to be an actress, it is no surprise that the Kelly household is keenly focused on all the televised 'arts awards'. Recently, a ridiculous amount of column ink has been devoted to an “Americans just don't get Brit humour” defence of Ricky Gervais' turn as Golden Globes' host. Some people found Mr. Gervais' comments funny. Others, presumably all American, thought they 'went too far'. My opinion doesn't hold any consequence, but I thought what he said was funny but out-of-place; it wasn't the content but the context that I found offensive as he was host of the show.




Here in London, the Golden Globes was telecast with a panel providing commentary while the US commercials ran. One member was a comedian who sat crocheting in her stocking feet. As the show was coming to a close, she tucked into her shoes and laced them up. In my living room, I'd assume she would put her shoes on while chatting about the show, especially at 3 am, but on TV I thought she should have waited until off camera (or perhaps even worn them throughout the show). No issue with someone lacing her shoes, just not sure that it was the right move in the context of a televised commentary.



This balance of content and context is familiar to consultants, be they external experts or internal advisors. HR professionals are continually challenged to provide content expertise within a defined context. Does this rule apply in these circumstances? If we want to create this new organization, how will it impact this salary structure? Do we need to provide life insurance benefits akin to our US offering in Croatia? What title can we use in the UK that will align to the market and still fit our hierarchy? The business of Human Resources is to structure content into context.



Yet HR professionals are often hesitant, even challenged, to apply their HR expertise in the broader context of their business. A client recently shared concern about the communication dynamics of her firm's leadership team. The group is not only physically distributed, but is frequently dispersed in opinion, values and ideology. Rather than a 'common core vision', they form, break and re-form topical alliances. This 'push and pull' dynamic is generally encouraged by the firm's culture, but, as they approach a major acquisition, she fears it will disrupt focus and retard momentum. Despite being deeply concerned, "I just don't think they'd accept this input from me", she shared, "I don't know that I can challenge the effectiveness of the leadership team to lead the business as an HR professional." Another client, tackling compensation structure and cost, lacked visibility to product pricing and cost. They told us "these are business decisions not in our domain".



Was Ricky Gervais funny or not? That's a matter of opinion. What is clear, however, is that your assessment will reflect the content of his routine in the context presented. Similarly, an HR leader may not feel it is appropriate to challenge the exec team on style in every situation, but, in the context of stewarding a successful acquisition, this discussion content is entirely appropriate and necessary. Should HR direct or even opine on product pricing? Generally, I'd be inclined to say "no", but in the context of assuring there is sufficient business support for competitive compensation, this is absolutely essential.

Building Your Table

Ever been to a dinner party or a family meal? Sure you have! Ever been seated next to someone who has absolutely nothing to say? You know the type. You offer an amusing anecdote from the paper and they smile. You share a rich story about the host and they chuckle or nod. You comment on the quality of the meal and they agree the food is good. Then you check your watch, wonder how you will manage for another hour, then turn to the person on your right and pray they are a bit more engaging!

Recently, we've been talking with HR leaders about 'Strategic HR Capability'. Yes, indeed! Now that the business world has accepted that things will not 'return to normal', there is increasing recognition that HR needs to partner with core business leadership to focus on the landscape ahead.  The good news is that this means HR, more and more, has 'a seat at the table'. It's refreshing that HR is less focused on getting an invitation, but what HR leaders, and their core business partners, are telling us is that their HR teams are too busy with operations or not strategically skilled.

What do you do if HR is too busy with operations or doesn't have the skills to focus strategically? What if your HR is a boring dinner guest?

Most companies would focus immediately on skill-building programs, and, certainly, this can have an impact. Building HR's knowledge of the business, honing consultative skills and tooling the team with techniques can enhance HR's dialogue with core business leaders, and, with the right coaching and sustained focus, HR can become more strategic over time. Skill building will get you a more entertaining dinner guest.

Trouble is, most companies don't have the time to nurture and develop HR's impact. Most companies are looking for strategic HR impact NOW (if not last month). They don't want an entertaining dinner guest, they want a keynote speaker.

Have you ever noticed how a university student, or a recent MBA graduate will, without hesitation or humility, tell you exactly what should be done, and. what's more, exactly why you are doing it wrong? Can you even count the number of sites and blogs (yes, I see the irony) that are focused on critiquing the action (or lack of action) of major companies?  Thinking about this, it occurs to me that the MOST strategic, effective, smart and impactful HR people I have encountered (and I've worked with quite a few) weren't always 'well prepared' for the task at hand. They didn't necessarily 'have the skills'. What they did have was a requirement to take action. Isn't innovation born of necessity?

So what if HR didn't stop at building skills (which is rarely a bad thing to do) but extended further. What if HR didn't only contribute at the table? What if HR built their own table?

There's an old movie (1988 release) called Working Girl. Melanie Griffith  plays a secretary who desperately wants to get ahead but can't get anyone to take her seriously due to her position (and some really bad hair and wardrobe choices). She does, ultimately, advance an idea and make a career for herself with the help of Harrison Ford. A pivotal point in the plot is when she is accused of stealing the idea she has presented and she explains that she formed the idea on the basis of an article in a human interest magazine and a tidbit in a gossip column; she developed a great business plan on the basis of unlikely sources.

I was speaking with a group of HR leaders at a conference a few months ago about 'scanning the horizon'; using external clues to identify new directions and future impact on your business.As you've already guessed, I shared the 'Working Girl' anecdote and then I asked the group to tell me what they see for the future of their companies, their businesses. The very same HR professionals who had, just minutes before, told me that they didn't feel capable of advising their business partners on strategic matters could easily describe what forces were at work in their marketplace and industry. They could easily anticipate what the impact might be on their business and they could define the types of things they could be doing to prepare for that future. One HR Manager even shared that his business team was heading in the wrong direction, "We're already the low cost service provider. With competition increasing, we  need to be building our service quality  rather than putting all of our energy into cost containment. We ought to be building skills rather than slashing our training and development budgets."

Maybe HR should define an agenda while building its skills. Once defined, HR can test and advocate for that agenda; not only engaging in the dialogue, but defining it.