Compensation Cafe

Cafe Classic: Cultural Practices for a More Dynamic Workplace

Editor's Note: As we reimagine and rebuild work structures and practices in the wake of COVID's disruption, Derek Irvine's Classic post on creating more dynamic - and inclusive - workplaces is very timely!

Eric Mosley was quoted in an interview with Forbes as saying: “Organizations are changing. The way we work is changing. The top-down hierarchical approach is a dying legacy of the industrial era.” The implications of those dynamics are far-reaching for many HR and business leaders, especially those who are interested in improving upon the ways that modern organizations work.

Eric’s comments couldn’t be timelier, given teams-based research summarized in an Insights by Stanford Business article. That piece addresses the pitfalls specifically associated with top-down structures. I thought it helpful to summarize some of those findings, and speak to how I see organizations adapting to the changing face of business.

What are the 3 pitfalls of hierarchies?

According to the research mentioned above, when there is too much hierarchy:

1. Levels of participation are skewed. Those in leadership positions often take up a majority of airtime. When participation does come from others, it tends to be spent agreeing with the leader as opposed to adding unique value.
2. Individuals with the most applicable knowledge or expertise may not have the opportunity to contribute to decisions in those areas. Some of the research points to a tendency to listen to those with seniority over first-hand knowledge of the topic.
3. A rush to agreement, without a healthy amount of debate. In the presence of a hierarchy, individuals are less likely to critically or constructively examine the assumptions the team is making and what the most effective solutions could be.

Many of these problems could be exacerbated as traditionally hierarchical organizations face the need to address more collaborative and dynamic expectations of workers. Fortunately, there are several practices that can help build a culture that avoids those pitfalls and supports individuals in bringing their most productive selves to work.

3 Practices for a Dynamic Workplace

1. Leaders as coaches. While it is important for leaders to provide a clear and motivating vision of the direction the company or team should take, it is equally important to provide employees the autonomy to determine the specific path to that goal. This balancing act is critical in achieving greater levels of participation from a broader segment of the workforce.
2. Crowdsourced performance. Teams and organizations are successful when there is a shared understanding of who knows what, and who has which skills and abilities. As roles become more fluid, that level of understanding can be difficult to achieve unless the company has developed a scalable, social solution for employees to contribute and share that knowledge.
3. Recognition of differences and diversity. Constructive debate often comes from diverse perspectives and the ability to give voice to those perspectives. Greater participation and empowerment, as mentioned above, both help employees feel they have a voice. That sense is reinforced when peers are able recognize each other for diverse approaches that all contribute to organizational success.

Together, this set of practices can help create a culture of greater humanity in the workplace, ensuring that all employees can successfully participate, leverage their own unique skillsets, and provide their diverse viewpoints.

What is replacing hierarchy at your organization?

As Globoforce’s Executive Vice President of Client Strategy and Consulting, Derek Irvine is an internationally minded management professional with over 20 years of experience helping global companies set a higher ambition for global strategic employee recognition, leading workshops, strategy meetings and industry sessions around the world. He is a leader in the WorkHumanmovement and the co-author of "The Power of Thanks" and his articles on fostering and managing a culture of appreciation through strategic recognition have been published in Businessweek, Workspan and HR Management. Derek splits his time between Dublin and Boston. Follow Derek on Twitter at @DerekIrvine.

Cafe Classic: The Value Of the Value Proposition

Editor's Note:  We seem to have moved away from the notion of the "value proposition" in relation to our total rewards offerings.  In this Classic post, Chuck Csizmar examines the roots and value of that (outdated?) idea in understanding what we offer to employees in exchange for their work.

Use of the term "Value Proposition" seems to have gone out of date in Human Resource circles, or at least I don't hear it mentioned anymore.  Have you?  Granted, catchy buzz phrases come and go with the seasons, or so it seems, but I had thought that the value proposition as a strategic compensation focus had roots.  Perhaps the term has been replaced by a new phrase (same idea; new words).  It can be hard to keep track.

I hope though, that compensation practitioners are not losing sight of the concept, because in my humble opinion this thinking should be the 11th commandment.

For those new to Compensation the original term (in HR speak) can be described as follows:

A value proposition is a promise of value to be delivered and acknowledged and a belief from the employee that value will be delivered and experienced.  A value proposition can apply to an entire organization, or parts thereof, or employee perception, service or programs.

What the dictionary is saying is that if an employee values something, then a  promise by their employer to provide that something is considered a worthwhile strategy.

The Value of "Something"

The trick is, what is that "something?"  Because one size does not fit all.

We all want money.  Cash is king and all of that.  But pay by itself can be more of a psychological dissatisfier than most realize (remember Herzberg's Motivation Theory?).  Because having what we consider the right amount of pay results in a neutral feeling , while anything less than the right amount is a perceived negative.  And having more?  Does that feeling even exist?  So there is little upside for the employer to paying more if the goal is employee satisfaction.

However employees in their diversity want more than just money.  They can appreciate and "value" more than the cash. It could be medical and / or other benefit coverage, low insurance premiums or deductibles, vacation time, free parking, discounted cafeteria food, liberal sick time, tuition reimbursement, even free coffee in the break room.  The list is endless.

Anything that the employee considers a reward (that which is provided or made accessible to employees) as part of the working environment is a something that will be valued.

Employers take note: what employees value they can be motivated to attain or retain (not lose).

Using The Value Proposition

This is where the "cafeteria style" benefit plans originated; the view that, if the organization focuses on delivering that which the employees consider as having personal value the return benefits (improved morale, retention, engagement, productivity, etc.) will outweigh the cost of providing that value.  And perhaps the cost doesn't have to be any greater than what was paid out before, just better focused.

I still remember the organization where my laundry was picked up and delivered to my office door.  And where I could buy a dozen high quality long stem roses for my wife.  The charge for these services was 100% paid by the employee, but the memory of having (and later losing) those conveniences lingers to this day.  Especially with my wife!

Even considering the above merits it remains a common practice in some organizations to focus on delivering pay and pay alone; to treat employees as having one dimensional thinking and desires.  Here are managers who think that by keeping their finger on the EASY button (just pay them more) all good things will come to the organization - without breaking a sweat.

Instead, all too often they find themselves burdened by unsustainable payroll growth, while still lacking the improved morale, retention, engagement, productivity, etc. that they had assumed would follow the pay cycle.  They find little or no ROI for their simplistic knee jerk tactic of thinking that one answer (the easy one) solves all challenges.

Because they really aren't interested in providing all that the employees consider value. That road leads to more work (complexities, time consuming, myriad answers) than if they simply pressed a payroll button.

So perhaps, at least in some quarters, the Value Proposition hasn't disappeared after all, but is just ignored.

But not with your organization, right?

Chuck Csizmar CCP is the founder and Principal of CMC Compensation Group, providing global compensation consulting services to a wide variety of industries and non-profit organizations.  He is also associated with several HR Consulting firms as a contributing consultant.  Chuck is a broad-based subject matter expert with a specialty in international and expatriate compensation.  He lives in Central Florida (near The Mouse) and enjoys growing fruit and managing (?) a clowder of cats.

Where Are We Headed After Covid in 2021?

What happens now? It's the question on all our minds as the country slowly slides out of lock down. Do we stick with remote work? If so, how do we price our jobs? And what about the complications of hybrid organizations? Most of all, what's everyone else doing, and how can we learn from them?

The major consulting firms have started to offer context and even some practical insights that can be helpful for all of us. Here's a roundup of recent useful resources from the key firms.

A report on U.S. talent trends is available from Mercer. It seems that many companies have learned they need to be more flexible in this world of remote work that we are birthing, but the number (48%) is not as high as I would have expected. Nor is the number of companies reporting that they need to reskill (40%) or rethink performance data (37%) as a result of the curve ball that Covid threw our way. So it looks like we weathered the storm without catastrophe, although there are shifts in direction.

The Covid world has--not surprisingly--energized the need to understand and plan. I would have expected these recent numbers on HR analytics to do lists to be lower before Covid: 48% plan to do workforce planning/modeling; 47% plan to improve analytics of learning/skill acquisition; and 45% plan to improve their insights into and data on pay equity. Analytics will continue to grow in importance as a fundamental of Human Resource practice, so take a look at the rest of these findings.

If you are in the group that has to improve your support for remote working or a hybrid organization, Aon|Radford's resources will be helpful for you. They walk through a case study of a company deciding whether they need to change job pricing as a result of increasing remote work. One of the insights: "While the talent pool is becoming broader and more fluid, most companies still target compensation based on geographic pay zones."

And if you are in the group where remote working worked so well during Covid that you are sticking with it, or maybe even expanding on it, Willis Towers Watson has an article with a framework for work design so you can analyze, and plan for, what can be done remotely--and reward appropriately.

Margaret O'Hanlon brings deep expertise to discussions on employee pay, performance management, career development and communications at the Café. Her firm, re:Think Consulting, provides market pay information and designs base salary structures, incentive plans, career paths and their implementation plans. Earlier, she was a Principal at Willis Towers Watson. A former Board member for the Bay Area Compensation Association (BACA), Margaret coauthored the popular eBook, Everything You Do (in Compensation) Is Communications, a toolkit that all practitioners can find at everythingiscommunication.com. She is a member of U.S. Masters Swimming.

Check Out This Fitness Craze!

Today I thought I would talk about our fitness level. No, I'm not recommending Peloton bikes or NordicTrack Vaults. I am recommending a bit of self assessment, though. We all share this century's pervasive health problem--yes, rumor has it that sitting has taken the place of cigarettes as our most damaging daily practice. But I think we in Human Resources have had a health problem with a longer history.

How many of us actually consider "walking the talk" as a required daily exercise? I'm not saying that we don't work out at all. But how often are do we overlook or bend our own fitness guidelines? I'm just checking in to make sure our playbook actually keeps us healthy.

Just like saying we're working on cardio when we're making yoga our regular go-to, there are a number of areas of our work where there's a mismatch between our intentions and our actions. As a result, our organization draws its own conclusions about how fit we are to lead. Let's take a look at a couple of areas we where we can up the intensity.

Business alignment. It's essential to understand the jobs that we are responsible for. We can't do our most basic work without this understanding. But how many of us can explain how each job contributes to business performance? We certainly know the answer for high contribution jobs, but all jobs deserve that same insight. Articulating this line of sight takes work, but it is almost improper to overlook the impact of swathes of jobs because they are deemed less important (until they aren't).

Compensation philosophy. You're kidding yourself if you think your department doesn't have one. And you're especially self-deluded if you think that everyone in the C-suite shares the same principles as you do. You may not want to create a doctrine, but when you, your colleagues, and managers make decisions, you all need to share the same point of view. As Ann Bares wrote, "Your compensation philosophy isn't what you say. It's what you do. . . What gets recognized and rewarded? What should get recognized and rewarded?" Each design or policy meeting should start with this discussion, unless your department has a formal position to present. Here, especially, it is critical to walk the talk so others can model Human Resources' practices.

Pay transparency. Our roads are paved with so many good intentions. But starting with the basics, do our employees really understand our total compensation offerings yet--so they could explain them accurately? And really, what progress have we made towards sharing pay range structures? Check out this Compensation Cafe article on pay transparency for insight into achieving your goals (not just thinking about them).

Competencies. We all have them on our performance management forms, but do we really understand them yet? We should be asking employees to focus on these select behaviors chosen because they will help differentiate our company's performance from our competitors. But when's the last time you did a strategy refresh on your competency selections? They should be adjusted as your business strategy shifts, replacing those that have become less relevant. Here's a Compensation Cafe article that should help.

Margaret O'Hanlon brings deep expertise to discussions on employee pay, performance management, career development and communications at the Café. Her firm, re:Think Consulting, provides market pay information and designs base salary structures, incentive plans, career paths and their implementation plans. Earlier, she was a Principal at Willis Towers Watson. A former Board member for the Bay Area Compensation Association (BACA), Margaret coauthored the popular eBook, Everything You Do (in Compensation) Is Communications, a toolkit that all practitioners can find at everythingiscommunication.com.

 

Cafe Classic: SEP Street and WIIFM Way

Editor's Note:  We bring you Jim Brennan's Classic post on the home of the heartless and self-centered.  Where do performance problems hang out in your organization?

Performance problems hang out in specific locations. All the dysfunctional behaviors seem to gather in a toxic cluster at the intersection of SEP Street and WIIFM Way. The road named for "Someone Else's Problem" is a narrow corridor twisting between solid walls that block off views on either side. The "What's In It For Me" path gets more traffic. It also attracts much attention because it is a slippery surface that manages to run downhill in both directions. WIIFM Way dead-ends at the SEP Street garbage dump labeled The Selfish Indifference Center.  Kindred spirits congregate there.

Funny, that a few months ago I had drafted the core of these thoughts about how patterns form in the ways things go wrong, when lo and behold, fellow regular Chuck Czismar posted on the same topic.

Rather than discuss one example of sensible economic behavioral bias, let's consider the process as a journey. Which path was the start? Which is the finish? My theory is that SEP Street travelers arrived there from WIIFM Way. Those indifferent to consequences affecting others (those who are "not-me") find themselves sliding down the easy greasy slime of WIIFM Way to the crowded but lonely Selfish Indifference Center at SEP Street. The home of the heartless is filled with like narcissistic egoists all obsessing each about themselves, incapable of empathy with their fellow bottom-dwellers. They find it natural to exploit and victimize others because they lack the emotional stability or psychological governors that monitor and control normal behaviors.

Self-centered people obsessed with personal advantage can be remarkably callous to the needs of others. As far as they are concerned, no one else on earth comes before themselves; and they act accordingly. Innumerable observers have noted that people always do exactly what they want to do. Unfortunately, not everyone is capable of benevolence or concern for others. Even worse, a number of those soulless unfeeling walking dead have learned how to simulate socially acceptable behavior. Sociopaths can intellectualize to imitate emotions that are instinctive in normal personalities.

Modern technology has popularized evil and made its presence more overt today. While deleting the usual scam emails I receive each day, it became obvious how the Internet has simplified criminal behavior. Just a matter of a few keystrokes ... maybe the application of a language translation program ... and a few thousand deceptive solicitations are launched into the ether for global distribution. Sending out electronic thieves is easy. No need to leave the comfort of your home to loiter sweating or shivering in a dark alley waiting for a potential victim to pass, either.

Hate to admit it, but there are some seriously bad people out there. Given enough time, you will encounter them. They will show themselves by their actions.  If employees, it becomes our responsibility to deal with them: to identify them and to deflect or  discourage their offenses.  Moreover, we need to create tripwires and maintain defenses against the depredations of exploiters who see all others as potential victims.  Hope that falls within your Total Rewards skill set!

E. James (Jim) Brennan is an independent compensation advisor with extensive total rewards experience in most industries.  After corporate HR posts and consulting CEO roles, he was Senior Associate of pay surveyor ERI before returning to consulting in 2015. A prolific writer (author of the Performance Management Workbook), speaker and frequent expert witness in reasonable executive compensation court cases, Jim also serves on the Advisory Board of the Compensation and Benefits Review.

Image courtesy of Chris Dobyns

Promotions Matter, Part 2

I thought I had finished with this topic in my last article, when I got a great note from one of our readers reminding me, ". . . to get managers to plan ahead for the financial part [of promotions] -- that remains a challenge." Of course, there is so much to cover on the topic of promotions, but Karen pointed out one important area we often overlook. Managers/supervisors are often promoted from front-line positions without much training in compensation practices. They typically learn about budgeting, coaching and awarding promotions on their own through trial and error.

Is Compensation making its best effort to support managers who want to give promotions? The last article on promotions encouraged us to mentor managers through the decision process. But what if the challenge starts earlier, in the basic understanding of how to use a salary budget? First-time managers face this scenario, and Compensation should be better at clarifying things right from the start. 

Let's look first at the pros and cons of the administration process that your company uses for promotions, so we can notice our  challenges.

• Some companies include promotional funds in the annual increase budget and allow managers to allocate promotions and increases from it with no specific guidelines. While this approach gives managers broad control, it can be a real challenge to those who haven't had to juggle dollars vs. employee expectations quite so candidly. In this scenario, it would be best to target first year managers/supervisors for coaching through the process. The foundational understanding that you give them will pay off in future years.
• Other companies communicate separate amounts for salary increases and promotions. This approach can be administered in various ways. Approval from Compensation on budget use is the most straightforward way, but it limits manager control. In these cases, managers will need coaching on how to manage employee expectations upfront, and possible disappointment further into the salary cycle. Alternately, some companies require no approval, giving the manager latitude to use the budgets at will. But what about the newbie manager who just doesn't have refined judgment yet--let's say s/he's not awarding promotions just to hold on to the money--how do you catch it? Another case for coaching first year managers/supervisors.
• Finally, there are some companies that do not specify anything but the company's annual increase budget percentage. This can be seen as giving managers a chance to make a business case for their department's chunk of the budget based on business performance/role in financial results. The con to this approach can often be that managers are so hard-driving that they promise promotions before their budget is approved, leading to serious misunderstandings. Here's where traditional communications can be the most help, to catch this problem early in the process. Let's take a look.

If the bottom-line is that promotions are tricky, and many managers need guidance (or refreshers) on the considerations that go into a promotion, coaching is the best technique for building insight most, but not all, of the time. Other communications--available on the intranet as needed--can cover the administrative tactics and lay out the decision making process.

• Tip sheets--Provide the latest information, highlight recommendations and how to's on a single page.
• FAQs--Cover the list of the most common, and also toughest, questions that you get on promotions.
• Worksheets--Walk managers through the decision making process, identifying forms and approvals needed at each step.
• Video--If you have the budget, engage managers in a short visualized story highlighting the decisions involved.

Margaret O'Hanlon brings deep expertise to discussions on employee pay, performance management, career development and communications at the Café. Her firm, re:Think Consulting, provides market pay information and designs base salary structures, incentive plans, career paths and their implementation plans. Earlier, she was a Principal at Willis Towers Watson. A former Board member for the Bay Area Compensation Association (BACA), Margaret coauthored the popular eBook, Everything You Do (in Compensation) Is Communications, a toolkit that all practitioners can find at everythingiscommunication.com.

Cafe Classic: How to Spread Innovation

Editor's Note: How can you encourage innovation to thrive in your organization?  Derek Irvine provides some Classic tips.

I was thinking back to an old New Yorker article recently. In the piece, Atul Gawande (of The Checklist Manifesto fame) analyzes the types of attributes that make some innovative ideas spread quickly and others spread much more slowly. It’s an interesting take on the progression of medicine, but has some great insights for organizations as well.

One of the key points that he makes is that adoption of innovative ideas depends in large part on face-to-face social diffusion processes – “people talking to people.” These interactions complement and ultimately amplify other diffusion processes (such as technology or incentives) to fundamentally shape the norms or culture of an organization towards new ways of thinking and behaving.

As organizations become increasingly complex and employees more globally distributed, a challenge for leaders is to ensure that solutions are in place to help people communicate, share ideas, and adopt innovative practices across the entire company.

One of the ways in which this challenge manifests itself is through the localization of innovation. I’m sure that many companies have pockets of excellence where the norms are towards continuous improvement and innovation, as well as pockets where that behavior is less common. Unfortunately, there are any number of barriers that prevent diffusion and scaling of ideas across the boundaries of those pockets.

Businesses are increasingly recognizing that technology and incentives are no longer sufficient drivers to overcome those barriers; instead, a holistic solution is needed that emphasizes human-centered technology and empowering rather than restrictive, compliance-oriented policies.

This is certainly a growing trend across varied areas like performance reviews, feedback, and social recognition- spheres where technology is enabling a better quantity and quality of human-to-human interaction. In these cases, emphasis is placed less on prescriptive rules and more on exemplars of positive development and achievement. These solutions are able to capture all of this and spread it more widely throughout the organization.

Take for example a performance review process that highlights a team member’s innovation in completing a challenging project that the rest of the team can learn from. Or take the example that is provided by peer recognition of how a colleague has taken her own area of expertise and applied it to a new area in the company with positive results. Finally, consider the feedback that a manager offers to demonstrate improvements on a core process that each team member can adopt.

These types of solutions offer a new view of the organization, where the spread of innovation through “people talking to people [through technologies and processes]” is strengthened and pockets of excellence grow. Returning to the article that opened this post, it is an approach that requires people to be “on the ground” to ensure that these dynamics become self-propagating.

How would you set up your company to thrive based on the spread of innovation?

As Globoforce’s Executive Vice President of Client Strategy and Consulting, Derek Irvine is an internationally minded management professional with over 20 years of experience helping global companies set a higher ambition for global strategic employee recognition, leading workshops, strategy meetings and industry sessions around the world. He is a leader in the WorkHumanmovement and the co-author of "The Power of Thanks" and his articles on fostering and managing a culture of appreciation through strategic recognition have been published in Businessweek, Workspan and HR Management. Derek splits his time between Dublin and Boston. Follow Derek on Twitter at @DerekIrvine.

The Dilemma of the Tenured Employee

The other day I was trimming the landscape of several plants that had outgrown their space (in Florida everything grows, all year long) when my wife asked me, why are you cutting down those plants?  They look nice and the blossoms have a sweet scent.  Can't we keep them?

They were ginger plants, and true enough they were pretty and did smell nice - but they had also overgrown the area where we had planted them.  Slowly spreading outward, they were crowding out other plants and starting to transform our attractively designed landscape into what would soon become an overgrown jungle.   The plants were no longer providing the same value to us as they had done for several years previous.  It was time to cut back or cut out.

Which got me thinking; how hard is it for managers to tell someone "it's time to go"?  Sometimes employees stay too long at a particular job, year after year racking up higher pay levels while not really delivering more in terms of performance than they did the previous year.  You find them performing the same activities, repeatedly - but for increasing pay.

Reliable workers?  Good workers?  Yes.  Expensive?  Yes, to that, too.  Is their value to you increasing?  Perhaps not.

After a while you will start to realize that, while good old reliable Bob is doing a fine job, someone else can perform that same job for a lot less money.  So, what do you do with Bob?

Ignore him?

Think about it.  If a loaf of bread is priced at $2.00, would you be comfortable with paying $3.00?  Or even $2.50?  For the same product, the same taste?  Would you consider that additional expense well worth it?  Or would you start searching the store shelves for a loaf of bread that costs less and tastes the same?

Creating the Problem

How did you get into this fix, having long serving and overpriced employees on your staff, stuck in the same job, year in and year out? 

The answer is often simple and straightforward; because they are comfortable, to the point where they see no reason to change the status quo.

• They like it here; they like the job, their co-workers, the work environment.  They like everything about their situation.
• They know everything about the job(s), as well as the company, and so the stress level is not a concern, and they feel able to focus less effort to do the job.  They could do it in their sleep.
• They are comfortable doing what they do and have little motivation to do more.  They are not compelled to break out of their mold.  They do not see themselves as being in a rut, but comfortably situated.
• The pay is good, or at least satisfactory, so why leave and start fresh somewhere else - where they would have to prove themselves all over again?  To this way of thinking job search is a real bother, stressful too, and should be avoided until necessary.

That is why some employees stay in the same job, content to remain on their own private treadmill.  It works for them.  But why do their managers allow this problem to develop?

A Management Issue

Why are some managers reluctant to act with these employees; to cut them off or promote them up and out?  Because many times taking such actions is not perceived as being in the best interest of the manager.  And there lies the rub.

• The cost and headache of obtaining a replacement; the time it would take, the disruption to schedules, the added stress.
• More work would be created for themselves, filling in for planned projects that still must be completed; their timelines may be negatively impacted.
• The perceived damage to the manager's reputation (employees have quit them), and leadership is watching - and perhaps wondering, why?

What is a manager to do, then?  Moving someone along when there isn't a performance problem is a tough decision to make and to implement.  Though sometimes it's the right thing to do, both for the company and for the employee.

• Encourage employees to learn and grow within the company - preparing themselves for better positions.
• Be open to losing an employee to another department, one that may be able to better utilize their capabilities.  Holding on to someone too long does not help either party.
• Managers should expect and demand continued and improved contributions from all their employees, no sitting back and coasting.
• Managers should plan to move employees up or move them out as part of managing an evolving staff.

Ask yourself, where is the balance - of contribution provided (performance) versus value paid out (compensation)?  When the balance tips too far in either direction, it's time for action.  When an employee recognizes that there is more contribution on their part than value received (more work for less money), they look for the exit.  However, when the manager sees that there is more value (reward) provided than continuing performance contribution, perhaps it is time to consider moving such employees along.

I'm just saying, the day will come - for some employees.  When it does, will you recognize that it is time to pull the plug?

Chuck Csizmar CCP is the founder and Principal of CMC Compensation Group, providing global compensation consulting services to a wide variety of industries and non-profit organizations.  He is also associated with several HR Consulting firms as a contributing consultant.  Chuck is a broad-based subject matter expert with a specialty in international and expatriate compensation.  He lives in Central Florida (near The Mouse) and enjoys growing fruit and managing (?) a clowder of cats.

Creative Commons image "Skeletons," by Chris Charles

Improving Line of Sight

Line of sight is one of those terms that people toss off -- everyone nods sagely, and the conversation moves on. It's a shame because employees are eager to find out how their work contributes to the company's strategy. In fact, companies where employees know their line of sight do better financially.

After all, don't we promise employees a clear line of sight when we ask them to write their objectives? Who wouldn't wonder "why" after being asked to analyze work outcomes and then select those that have the greatest impact? We can guess that most employees have made up their own version of how their job contributes to the company. And those who haven't probably feel like they have a job to do which their supervisor oversees, and that's enough.

But is this lack of clarity really good enough? Wouldn't you rather have a company that's more cohesive around its Mission? I have been in companies that work hard on line of sight and the level of discussion around strategy and product development is impressive.

Do you need to create a full-on campaign to improve? You'll have the greatest impact if you can align senior management around the issue, so that there is a set of clear messages that are discussed first with managers, and then with employees. But not everyone can succeed at this level. So, what's an alternative?

Make a discussion about line of sight a regular part of team discussions throughout the company two or three times a year. If everyone is doing it, there will inevitably be discussions among employees that can ignite further interest.

Here's an easy group technique that can be incorporated into most any meeting:

• Choose one of the team's goals and ask everyone to write down how it contributes to the business strategy.
• Have the team leader start by describing why this discussion is important.
• Then the team leader starts by sharing her/his notes, capturing them on a board. It's important to have the team leader go first to model how important the topic is, and to show how she/he is adapting to open sharing.
• Go around the group, asking each person to share her/his thoughts and write them on the board
• Provide feedback on what has been brought out. Expand where necessary and make suggestions about how to increase  insight.
• Consider discussing more team goals, if time allows.
• Suggest that each one in the meeting think about how the discussion links with her/his own objectives, to see if that leads to further questions or discussion.

Over time, these discussions will help employees see their role in the bigger picture. Managers will also learn where to put additional effort into clarifying the team's and/or the company's business priorities. The outcomes of these discussions can inevitably lead to improved performance -- which is dead center in Comp's line of sight, isn't it?

Margaret O'Hanlon brings deep expertise to discussions on employee pay, performance management, career development and communications at the Café. Her firm, re:Think Consulting, provides market pay information and designs base salary structures, incentive plans, career paths and their implementation plans. Earlier, she was a Principal at Willis Towers Watson. A former Board member for the Bay Area Compensation Association (BACA), Margaret coauthored the popular eBook, Everything You Do (in Compensation) Is Communications, a toolkit that all practitioners can find at everythingiscommunication.com.

Cafe Classic: Encouraging and Rewarding Teamness

Editor's Note: As we embrace and incorporate, analytics, AI and machine learning into more parts of managing the human work experience, have we given sufficient attention and emphasis to the important of teamness?  A good time to revisit a Classic question.

Should "making teams better" be our target performance analytics?

Fresh from the annual MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference, HBR blogger and MIT Research Fellow Michael Schrage notes that one of the top themes of the event was how to move beyond the Moneyball-like era of predicting and assessing individual performance and focusing on teamness.

More quantitative attention is being paid to how well players improve the in-game performances of their teammates. Are there particular game situations where their positive—or negative—influence is statistically pronounced? Can that impact be meaningfully correlated with psychological attributes or other behavioral characteristics? Indeed, how can the coaches improve the TQ—Teamness Quotient—of their players’ performances?

Or, as former Chicago Bulls coach Phil Jackson puts it: “The next step in analytics will be how to build chemistry.”

Not surprisingly, MoneyBall author Michael Lewis already had a bead on this teamness phenomenon back in 2010, when he wrote The No-Stats All-Star for the New York Times.  The article featured NBA player Shane Battier of the Houston Rockets, who presented (as Lewis pointed out) an intriguing statistical anomaly.  "His greatness is not marked in box scores or at slam-dunk contests, but on the court Shane Battier makes his team better, often much better, and his opponents worse, often much worse."

From the article:

It was, and is, far easier to spot what Battier doesn’t do than what he does. His conventional statistics are unremarkable: he doesn’t score many points, snag many rebounds, block many shots, steal many balls or dish out many assists.  ...

He may not grab huge numbers of rebounds, but he has an uncanny ability to improve his teammates’ rebounding. He doesn’t shoot much, but when he does, he takes only the most efficient shots. He also has a knack for getting the ball to teammates who are in a position to do the same, and he commits few turnovers.

When it came out, the article prompted some interesting conversation around our dinner table.  My husband Keith worked with Lewis during his Liar's Poker days at Salomon Brothers and also coached youth hockey for nearly two decades.  The Battier story had a parallel in Keith's coaching career, where he realized early on that the key statistics for his players were not "goals" or "assists" but rather their "plus-minus."  Individual players' plus-minus stats get increased by one every time their team scores an even-strength or shorthanded goal while they are on the ice and decreased by one every time their team allows an even-strength or shorthanded goal while they are on the ice.  As Keith will point out, it was the best metric for how an individual player really contributes to the success of the overall team.

As data and analytics bring increasing sophistication to our understanding of employee and organizational performance, will we be able to identify the plus-minus statistics for our teams?  Will we discover metrics that capture the essence of successful team chemistry and provide insights into which individuals and efforts (while seemingly unremarkable when measured alone) help make the team and the organization better by their mere presence in the game?

And - perhaps most important of all - having quantified it, will we be able to encourage and reward teamness without undermining and ultimately destroying it?

Creative Commons image "2013 01 18 McFarland youth Hockey at UW game (3)" by Elliott Connor Photography