Reflecting on her work, she shared her ideas of how she could have pushed the organization forward in the past year.  She could have saved the organization both time and money through selection and development projects that she already knows her company needs.  However, before she could get to more strategic changes, she would get bogged down in day-to-day competing priorities, such as corporate objectives, regional objectives, and HR questions.

We’ve all had the experience that as one crisis or project is coming to a close, there’s always a couple more cropping up.  As a result, the good ideas, the long-term project, or the employees’ developmental needs sometimes get pushed to the back burner, or are jammed into a one-day meeting.  My friend loves working at an agile and hard-driving company, but she confided that she rarely has the ability to sit down and focus on projects due to her workload.  As with most of us, she has to do more than ever but with less support, and is already working 10+ hour days and on her Blackberry after work.

How do you balance your workload?  One of the things that ECI specializes in is doing the “heavy lifting” on Talent Management projects and initiatives.  By developing flexible/custom Talent Management tools and systems, we allow our clients to manage their day-to-day responsibilities, while we work on projects in the background.  This allows for a best-of-both-worlds scenario, where our clients can make an impact with new Talent Management strategies, while still managing the everyday priorities.

Employee motivation is well researched, and various theories have been presented for many years. From early theories such as the Hierarchy of Needs to the more modern S.M.A.R.T. system of goal-setting, many ways to motivate employees have been proposed. However, at the end of the day, what truly motivates you?

The lure of money surely works for many. However, as the early theorist Herzberg notes, money is likely to motivate you and prevent you from being dissatisfied at work, and may not necessarily lead to you gain job satisfaction. As such, there are other aspects of the workplace that can motivate individuals. For a salesperson, overcoming the challenge of convincing a client to purchase a product can be just as motivating as the monetary aspect of the sale itself. Furthermore, an employee in an entry level position can be motivated by the opportunity to learn new information and begin a new career, regardless of the compensation associated with the position. A research team can be driven by the excitement surrounding the development of a new pharmaceutical product.

On the other hand, well-paid employees could have little or no desire to work if they have hostile managers or very poor working conditions. Additionally, if personal goals such as career advancement, good work-life balance and recognition are not attained on the job, the likelihood of an employee being motivated, despite a big pay-day, is reduced. Therefore, it is important that employers are aware of the driving forces within their employees to keep them motivated to perform at the highest level.

What are your thoughts on the topic of employee motivation? Is money the only driving force in the workplace?

I liked this article because it more or less confirms what we have been doing in our research for the past 15 years.  Our business, ECI, founded in 1996, is built upon the identification of high performance behaviors in a variety of environments and roles using statistical analysis of performance metrics. Like Google, we have found that this type of data analysis yields a valid and reliable formulation of the root cause for success.

But since we have been focusing all of our attention on identifying high performance behaviors within organizations, here are our best practices that Google’s analysts might want to consider on the next round of Oxygen studies:

1. It is not sufficient to screen for key words in performance reviews and anecdotal information. While that practice might put you in the ballpark, it won’t get you to your seat. There is too much variance and inconsistency in prose type performance reviews. If you really study a block of performance reviews, you find that most managers are not appropriately trained in giving objective, actionable feedback, nor are they consistently assigning ratings to performers.  This inconsistency of ratings across the review process skews the data.
2. Use force rank against a Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scale to identify quartiles of performance for your overall population.  The overall ratings assigned in the standard performance review process cannot be relied upon to indicate who is the better manager. In our studies, we find that in 60% of companies, ratings are assigned for some other purpose than to evaluate actual performance levels. These include attempting to norm a population to a bell curve for compensation purposes, feeling that someone deserves a raise and having to justify this with the performance rating, and favoritism by the manager for the most politically savvy performers on the team.
3. Use multiple measures to confirm or overturn the presence of key high performance behaviors.  ECI’s rule is that if you identify a factor in one segment of the study, you must verify its presence in another segment in order to consider it applicable to the model.
4. Use valid and reliable metrics, such as indices, personality assessments, and other proven tools to identify core performance behaviors and behavioral preferences. If you incorporate a couple valid and reliable metrics in the study process, you can statistically compare the findings from these more rigorous tools to the less objective sources of data in your study to know with good certainty that you have proven a relationship to the high performance behaviors/factors you identify.
5. Make sure you include results from job analysis within your study process.  By observing the work in context, using a standardized interview form designed to assess the work environment, and identifying differentiating performance factors using this process, the criteria you establish should  pass the muster of the EEOC, if you decide to use this model for selection or promotional purposes.
6. Use professional statistical tools, such as SPSS, to confirm the validity around your model. When you put people into a room and say “does this look right to you?” or “how would you modify this finding?”, the only thing you are verifying is face validity. That is insufficient, in my estimation, to devise a management development program or another talent management process. You need the numbers to prove your model. Hopefully, the standard you achieve is at least a correlation significance of .70 against the ratings you used to identify your high performing population.
7. Don’t forget to look at the entire population, not just the high performing group. If you only study the top performers, you don’t know if the factor you identified is present for everyone in the group or only high performers possess it. In our studies, for example, we find that all sales people within a large sales force have good self-confidence, can withstand rejection and are motivated to persuade others. While these factors are critical to selling success, the only thing we can say with certainty is that the original screening process used to hire the sales force is doing a good job of identifying these factors. These are the rudimentary factors associated with all successful sales forces; they are essential, but they do not help us to identify the additional factors needed for success in a specific company culture, marketplace or customer group. The unique factors are those that drive exceptional results, lower turnover, and higher job satisfaction.

Google did recognize that generalized industry principles and recommendations are not good enough to really drive their organization’s unique high performing manager behaviors. I commend them for that perspective. I would love to take a look at their data and make a couple of recommendations on how they might enhance the validity and reliability of their study process, however. That would surely be a wonderful conversation.

The premise of a “Stay interview”  is interesting, because it could help an organization to understand why people stay with their company.  This information could be used in many ways.  First, it could be used as a recruiting tool, to attract top talent, by telling them what current employees say about the role and/or company.  Next, it could be used to see which benefits your employees love and which ones aren’t as useful.  Finally, the information can be used to improve efficiency with in the position, by asking employees for their ideas to increase productivity.

Any way you look at the “Stay Interview” it makes sense for a business to try it.  It could have a dramatic effect on an organization, while being cost-effective and easy to use.  Here at ECI, we could actually take the “Stay interview” and put it into a survey  that employees take electronically.  Then we could use performance data to compare the responses of Top Performer against other performance groups to see what your best employee’s really value and how that compares to the others.

If you would like to learn more about ECI’s survey options please contact us!

It makes you wonder.  What is wrong with me?  Aren’t I doing a good job?  Can I do something different to get promoted?  The true answer to this question really depends on the person and the circumstances.  But more often than not, it is an issue of people not seeing you in the new role or having questions about how effective you might be in the new role.

Let’s take a look at some real situations, names removed, of course, to protect the candidates.

1.  Dan was hired to manage various projects at a small company.  He was a loyal worker who took his responsibilities seriously.  He took pride in doing a good job and worked well beyond the expected hours in order to make sure nothing was overlooked and that he did all the work as planned.  In meetings and when working with others, however, he was not a team player.  He procrastinated and some team members had the experience of having to pick up the slack, since he didn’t have his part finished according to the due dates the team had agreed on.  When it came time to discuss performance, Dan looked for a promotion to a manager level.  He wasn’t given the promotion.  The reason, which he had difficulty accepting, was that if he couldn’t manage his own work in a timely way, how will he be able to oversee the work of others?  His response was that doing the work and managing the work were two different skills.  His manager said this was true, but how did he expect to manage team members who had previously had to do his work because he didn’t get it finished on time and failed to ask for help?

2.  Michael had responsibility for dealing with customers in a sales situation.  He was an excellent source of knowledge and advice to his customers.  He knew how to negotiate a favorable deal and he always followed up to ensure that everything arrived as planned for the customer’s order.  Customers loved him.  But in handling his coworkers, he was directive, he was demanding, did not listen, and often inappropriately teased coworkers in front of others.  A manager’s position came up and he felt that he was next in line for the job.  He was passed over for someone whom he had trained.  He seriously considered quitting.  Aren’t I good enough?  Haven’t I produced a lot of business for the company?

3.  Joe was consistently late for work and often left early for various personal reasons.  He took long lunches and coworkers wondered why he got away with this when he was the first one to complain when they needed a few extra minutes.  He thought he was definitely management material.  While his work was good, his personal attitude was a real source of discussion for many people in the organization.  When he wasn’t promoted, he had difficulty understanding that he was undermining his credibility by holding himself to different standards than others.

All three of these individuals were passed over for the same reason, the reason being that they held themselves to different standards than they held others to.  Dan wasn’t really a team player and didn’t really care if someone else had to pick up his work.  Michael didn’t treat his coworkers the way he treated his customers.  And Joe felt that he didn’t have to abide by the company policies.  These issues are all attitude issues and are one of the most common reasons employers state as the reason they will pass someone over for a promotion.

If you want to get promoted, even though it is hard to hear, you need to be professional in everything you do. Whether it is working on the team, interacting with others or making sure that you abide by company policies, people who get promoted are usually the ones who get the basics right first. Don’t let things that you can control get in the way of getting promoted.

In one situation, we found that actual merit payouts are not curvilinearally reflective of performance.  Kind of disturbing, I would say, but understandable when you dig further to find that the  actual payouts are sometimes modified to take into account other factors, such as unique accomplishments, changes in job titles or other rewards perhaps not directly related to higher sales numbers, for example.   The problem I see with this finding is that if we don’t find the linkage to stated performance outcomes, don’t you think that actual performers who are paid under these systems could question the accuracy of their reward?

In the study mentioned above, we also found that there were direct relationships between particular behavioral traits and the tendency to demonstrate high performance.  This information is particularly useful in the selection process when you have a tool, such as the ECI Behavioral Insight, incorporated to help assess a candidate’s potential to demonstrate the trait.

In another study, we found a statistically significant correlation of .05 or better between higher ratings in competency performance dimensions and actual performance.  This means that a well-crafted competency performance system can be used to coach and evaluate performance and that enhancing ratings of competency do increase performance.  Many sales intensive companies have for years paid strictly on the dollars produced and have held their competency ratings on the side as “nice to know abouts”.  This study shows that by developing key competencies, you will increase productivity in sales numbers.

Using metrics to assess performance factors and to identify the factors that emerge in high performers is of critical importance today when all businesses have to do more with less.  The less people you have, the better they had better be able to perform.  And the better your performance metrics need to be in order to reinforce the real behaviors that deliver results.

It is important to note that I am not talking about reach and frequency models of sales management.  I am talking about the demonstration of critical behaviors and their relationship to producing more results.  This is the most important reason competency systems should be instituted…to enable companies to establish the behavioral expectations for performance and to ensure that these expectations will in fact deliver better results.

One problem she faced was having to manage a large number of hourly workers.  These people were handling a lot of transactions each day, were responsible for entering complex data accurately, and had to answer a lot of inquiries to move transactions through the process.  Unfortunately, they were also stressed out and had many items on their agendas, some typical to a traditional hourly workforce.  The vast majority of her team members were women who were single heads of households trying to make ends meet while juggling children, elderly parents or other problems that faced them.  For many, work provided the only stable environment in their lives.

She learned early on that the best thing she could do for the team was to establish a fair set of rules and guidelines for work and to ensure that these were followed consistently for everyone on the team.   Within her team, she had a number of supervisory staff, many of whom had worked their way up to their positions through their own hard work and through promotion.   In her mind, it wasn’t the hourly staff who caused the majority of the issues, but rather the way in which some of the supervisors handled the problems.

Favoritism, giving a break once and having the break expected every time, not having the courage to take action when a problem first began, and ignoring some issues all were actions that caused workers to become problems.  I certainly am not saying that the majority of issues arose from the supervisory staff, but had the supervisors followed the rules consistently and applied them fairly, many of the people who became problem employees would have been reformed or gone before becoming problem employees.

People become very resentful of problem employees, even though as a leader, you probably aren’t hearing much from anybody.  The impact of the problem employee is often far-reaching.  Other team members end up taking messages and answering phones, picking up the slack for their troubled worker partner, and generally feeling as if they are being used by the organization.  And the impacted team members are unlikely to speak up, since that might make them appear as if they are complaining.

Once the problem worker is gone, however, there is often a sigh of relief.  the hidden impact of problem workers can be significant.  Since it is a new year, it might be a good time to discuss how supervisors are handling people with problems.  Your remaining team members will be grateful.

If you are planning changes within your company to respond to the downturn in the economy, have a plan and execute the plan, while communicating clearly “what this means for you” as you go along.   If you need to lay people off, identify the positions or people who will be laid off and do the layoff all at once.  Laying people off over a longer period of time is sure to cause mass panic and exit, with your high performers leading the charge out the door.

If you plan to weather the storm, let people know this strategy as well and what specifically you will be doing that could impact people’s efforts or work.  Is it budget cutbacks?  Is it resource allocation?  Is it refocusing sales in new markets or using new selling strategies?  Communicate these plans to keep people apprised and report on how these strategies are working at regular intervals so that there are no surprises later on.

The next thing you need to do is to find out how people are feeling and what their concerns are.  Respond with honesty. Listening with concern, offering some reassurance if you can do so honestly, and communicating clear expectations on what people should be working on can help people get focused on the business, rather than the change.

If people are concerned about some aspect of their life at work, such as their 401K plans, consider providing more information about that issue.  At ECI, we will be conducting a 401K investor meeting in the next few weeks and have added some new funds to our plan to enable people to weather the storm that is occurring in the stock market.  Giving people more options within their 401K contributions can help people feel more in control of the change, as can having experts come in to give advice and counsel on how to get through the volatile marketplace.

Lastly, I think it is important to let people know that their efforts and contributions are valued.  This is a good time to let people know how much you appreciate their work and to offer some positive feedback on their individual accomplishments.  While we should be providing feedback at regular intervals, this is an especially important time to reinforce good performance and valued activities to enable people to understand that their efforts are appreciated by the organization.