LEADING THOUGHTS

Today, we come not to bury the Net Generation employee but to explore what employers need to do to avoid coming across as boorish dead-heads. In this short clip from McKinsey & Company, Clay Shirky, author and professor of new media at New York University, discusses the challenges Millenials face in many workplaces (you don’t mind cranking out some PowerPoint slides this weekend, do you?) and what employers need to do to retain these up and comers. Remember, Shirkey says, “Behaviour is motivation filtered through opportunity.”

For Generation Y — “Millennials” between the ages of 15 and 30 — the future seems anything but bright. They are a generation that “expected the world would be the way it has been for the past 20 years. They had expectations that they would find jobs and make lots of money. This will be a disappointed generation.” Go to article

A rosier view: For now, your employer isn’t likely to feel the need to create a happier or healthier workplace because a long line of people will take your job if you falter. But that’s a short-sighted view. Employers are losing the loyalty of their best employees at the worst possible time. Go to article

When it comes to team effectiveness among senior leaders in both politics and business, the two cultures face similar challenges. There are very few “real” teams at the top in either the public or the private sector. That probably explains why most companies and government agencies have such serious problems with accountability and performance. Go to article

Let’s pump up employees and stoke their competitive juices by ranking them against their peers. Better yet, let’s throw cold water on them. Comparing workers to their peers is usually a lousy idea, and here’s why. Go to article

The organization is flying through the turbulence of change. What does it do? Throw gobs of money at senior execs and “star” performers to induce them to stay on board? There is a more shrewd and less costly solution. Go to article (requires registration)

The issue: When selecting a new leadership team, should CEOs use a scientific approach that is fact-based and analytical? Or should they emphasize subjective factors such as personality, loyalty, motivation, politics, and team chemistry? Let the debate begin. Go to article

You’re flush with excitement because you’ve just hired an industry high flier. How can you make sure that your new star employee isn’t a flash in the pan?

Top-notch talents do not automatically perform at high levels, say Groysberg (Harvard Business School), Lee (RiskMetrics Group), and Abrahams (Harvard Business School). Writing in the MIT Sloan Management Review, they offer advice on how to get the best out of the best.

Their main point is that “star” hires perform at their peak when surrounded by colleagues of similar talent. As proof, they point to a study they performed among equity analysts who benefited (as did their customers) by working with sharp portfolio strategists and salespeople.

Why is this so? It turns out that high-quality colleagues act as sources of information, provide insightful feedback, serve as valuable interfaces between knowledge workers and clients, and enhance the reputation of their star colleagues.

This management strategy also leads to higher retention of the top performers, the authors state. “The goal here is the so-called Matthew effect: The more stars a company has, the easier it is to develop and retain such high-caliber individuals.”

Three other pieces of advice:

:: Avoid lavishing high salaries on your new star hire; doing so risks demoralizing co-workers. In fact, the authors write, high achievers may be willing to accept a pay cut for the opportunity to work with similarly talented employees.

:: Stars may not have the instinct to play well with others, especially when managerial time and resources are scarce and the urge to compete is greatest. Managers should therefore create a culture of collaboration by encouraging face-to-face contact and building a compensation package that rewards appropriate behaviour.

:: Don’t neglect home-grown talent. By developing high potentials from within and building bench strength, you will be rewarded with greater loyalty and less disruption when a key person leaves.

“What it Takes to Make ‘Star’ Hires Pay Off”, by Boris Groysberg, Linda-Eling Lee, and Robin Abrahams; MIT Sloan Management Review (Vol. 51, No. 2, Winter 2010, pp. 57-61)

photo credit: Noel Feans

“Workplace spirituality”: Are those two words in direct conflict, like “progressive conservative”? Maybe not: plenty of researchers make the case that it’s good for employees to bring their “whole person” to work, including their spiritual and religious expressions. It’s assumed that workplace spirituality leads to greater employee engagement through more meaningful work, enhanced ability to cope with stress, and more effective organizations. It’s a win all ‘round, right?

Marjolein Lips-Wiersma (U of Canterbury in New Zealand), Kathy Lund Dean (Idaho State U), and Charles J. Fornaciari (Florida Gulf Coast U) argue that there is a dark side to workplace spirituality (WPS). The dark side, they write in the Journal of Management Inquiry, is in how spirituality can be misused or misappropriated, particularly for managerial control.

They say most workplace spirituality research ignores two key dynamics wielded by the employer: the degree of control and “instrumentality” (in which employees are treated as means toward a goal such as profit or productivity).

“Firms by design are instrumental, goal-driven entities with a clear focus on ends, and any means adopted into the firm will have present some level of instrumentality for its employees,” Lips-Wiersma et al write. “Consequently, the very notion of attempting to formally include spirituality in modern firms will always include the potential for misuse and misappropriation.”

In their article, the researchers offer a two-by-two matrix anchored by “control” and “instrumentality” and with the following quadrants:

Seduction
Found in: Organizations with low control and low instrumentality.
Dark side: “Because organizational members are free to select in or out of WPS activities and determine the nature and form of their WPS, cultural fragmentation occurs. Certain employees’ WPS may speak for the organization as a whole, either by contagion or by publicity, or when the WPS practice amounts to discrimination.”

Evangelization
Found in: Organizations high in control and low in instrumentality.
Dark side: “The agenda of management (hidden or overt) is to convert employees to the spiritual beliefs of management and these beliefs are judged to be superior to other beliefs. In many ways, the organization will display formal and informal characteristics of religious cults—with the most successful organization members being those that buy into management’s view and expression of WPS.”

Manipulation
Found in: Organizations with low control and high instrumentality.
Dark side: “In these organizations, spirituality is primarily a tool for improving performance, but the form and nature in which WPS is incorporated into the organization is left open for determination by individual firm members. In this worldview, upper management believes that WPS is simply another potentially manipulatable variable to try and wrest more productivity from its workers, and it will immediately focus on strategies to do so.”

Subjugation
Found in: Organizations high in control and instrumentality.
Dark side: “In these organizations spirituality is not only a clear tool for improving performance, but the form and nature in which WPS is incorporated into the organization is highly specified by management. Thus, employees are asked (through some direct or indirect spiritual practice) to bring more of themselves to work, but the culture of control encourages people to behave and even ‘feel’ in prescribed ways.”

It all boils down to the tension between the “management of meaning” versus “meaningful work” as it relates to spiritual expression. Be looking for an employee backlash in the years ahead as individuals try to take back control. Their interior lives should not be for sale.

“Theorizing the Dark Side of the Workplace Spirituality Movement,” by Marjolein Lips-Wiersma, Kathy Lund Dean, and Charles J. Fornaciari; Journal of Management Inquiry (Vol. 18 No. 4, December 2009, pp. 288-300)

photo credit: estherase

When you call a meeting at work, do your colleagues roll their eyes? I feel for you. Here is some advice on how to win some meeting credibility, from Desmond J. Leach (Leeds U Business School) and colleagues.

Leach and his team surveyed 958 people in the U.S., UK, and Australia, trying to determine what makes people perceive a meeting to be effective. He focused on five meeting design characteristics: using an agenda, keeping minutes, starting and ending on time, meeting in an appropriate facility, and having a chairperson.

The results of the first phase of the study: the use of an agenda, punctuality, and meeting facilities rose to the top.

Respondents were then asked to consider more specifically the effectiveness of the last meeting on the day of their survey (to get around “recall bias”). The results this time: agenda completion, facilities, and the chairperson were the most important meeting design elements.

These perceptions held true for various types of meetings, such as those dealing with routine issues, information sharing, or addressing special problems. As well, neither the size of the meeting nor its duration seemed to effect peoples’ perceptions of meeting effectiveness, except when the meeting agenda was not completed.

If you really want to score points for your meeting prowess, do a good job involving attendees. The researchers found that higher levels of involvement predict greater perceptions of effectiveness.

“Perceived Meeting Effectiveness: The Role of Design Characteristics,” by Desmond J. Leach, Steven G. Rogelberg, Peter B. Warr, and Jennifer L. Burnfield; Journal of Business Psychology (2009, 24:65-76)

photo credit: Wildstar Beaumont

When it comes to fostering innovation in organizations, does less leadership lead to better results? After all, creative people have a high degree of “achievement motivation” and exhibit strong characteristics of autonomy, flexibility, cognitive complexity, self-confidence, dominance, and introversion. Given the nature of creative people, say researchers Byrne, Mumford, Barrett, and Vessey (U Oklahoma), “it is often thought that leadership influence is not always necessary.”

In fact, leadership has a substantial impact on the innovation process. Writing in the journal Creativity and Innovation Management, Byrne et al review the literature on leadership of creative efforts and advance a model of core leader functions tailored for creativity.

What do effective leaders of creative people look like?

They have substantial knowledge of the area in which they work and have creative problem-solving skills. According to the researchers, “Expertise allows the leader to: effectively represent the group; communicate clearly with the group; assess the needs of followers; and cultivate and encourage less experienced followers.”

They define the mission, providing structure and goal orientation. “Creative people are likely to respond better to concrete goals that guide project selection and evaluation, rather than idealized end states that rely on affective appeal.”

They provide support for ideas, the work, and social needs. “A leader’s role is to buffer her/his creative followers from the negative contextual influences that are often associated with large mechanistic organizations, while simultaneously capitalizing on the available resources and expertise provided by that organization.”

They have a broad understanding of their organization. “This understanding will allow the leader to tailor the creative ventures pursued
to the organization’s strategy, which in turn will make these ventures easier ‘to sell’ to top management.”

The authors suggest that leadership training should focus on creative problem-solving skills and reshaping the common assumptions often held about creative work. “Leaders must be able to recognize and respond appropriately to original ideas,” they write, “as well as be able to provide a direction for their followers’ problem-solving activities.”

“Examining the Leaders of Creative Efforts: What Do They Do, and What Do They Think About?” by  Cristina L. Byrne, Michael D. Mumford, Jamie D. Barrett, and William B. Vessey; Creativity and Innovation Management (Vol. 18 No. 4 2009; 256-268)

If you cannot find this journal is your local library, email me for a copy of the article at Alan [at] AlanMorantz.com

photo credit: jeanbaptisteparis

Tomorrow at 10 a.m., report to the staff meeting room for one hour of fun.

Sounds preposterous, no? Actually, this is not far from what is happening in many organizations desperate to boost employee engagement. There are ‘wacky Fridays’, karaoke competitions, laughter workshops, and countless variations on the theme. Here is the equation: organized and packaged fun means happy employees means more satisfied, creative, motivated employees means increased corporate performance. But can you actually connect the paint dots from increased fun to increased productivity?

Writing in a special “fun” issue of the journal Employee Relations, Sharon C. Bolton (Strathclyde U Business School, Glasgow) and Maeve Houlihan (University College Dublin) take a critical view. They say that for a great many employees, enforced fun is like enforced pain and that there is very little proof that such initiatives actually make for more engaged staff.

In the past, sociologists identified laughter and game playing in the workplace as either a way to tame the “beast of boredom” or to subversively make fun of management. In turn managers have been portrayed as seeing such hijinks as a disruptive influence that needed to be discouraged.

How far we’ve come. Now it’s the manager instigating the games and the employee who is cluck-clucking. “The informal rules of workplace fun appear to have been repackaged on management’s terms with the express purpose of furthering organisational goals,” Bolton and Houlihan write. “Put simply, ‘fun is not frivolous anymore.’”

The authors have identified “shades of engagement” as people enjoy, endure, or escape organizational-sponsored game playing.

According to Bolton and Houlihan, “Official fun has some striking features in the way it presumes that fun will be on managerial terms and that there will be benefits for all; in the way it excludes those who are unable (or choose not) to party all weekend; in the way it imposes formal reward mechanisms, and it demands macho work-hard, play-hard rules; and, in the process, it often reinforces unreconstructed stereotypes around what is considered fun and who may be made fun of; and it confuses as the boundaries around what is and is not sanctioned continually shift.”

The authors argue for more research in the area. I say, bring on the bongos.

“Are we having fun yet? A consideration of workplace fun and engagement,” by Sharon C. Bolton and Maeve Houlihan; Employee Relations (Vol. 31 No. 6, 2009; pp. 556-568)

If you cannot find this journal is your local library, email me for a copy of the article at Alan [at] AlanMorantz.com

photo credit: Troy McClure SF