The numbers have not been especially good this fall.

November’s unemployment rate remained stubbornly high at 8.6 percent. Recent news reports indicate that in the past few years the housing market dropped even worse than original figures indicated. And as European debt concerns continue, the stock market has taken another downturn this week.

Now word comes from Gallup that nearly three-fourths of American workers (71 percent) are either “not engaged” or “actively disengaged” in their jobs. Gallup uncovered these figures during a survey it conducted with 2,341 adults from July 1 to September 30, 2011.

As part of the survey, Gallup looked at demographics and came up with some interesting findings. For example, researchers learned that the better educated workers are, the more likely they are to be disengaged (which seems counterintuitive since one assumes that employees with less education tend to do more menial work). They also found that middle-aged workers are not as engaged as younger or older workers and that men are considerably less engaged than women.

On the whole, this amounts to bad news for American businesses. Why? Because as studies indicate, unengaged and disengaged employees are a drain on their companies. They’re wasteful and cost a lot in terms of turnover.  Organizations with high levels of employee disengagement are not nearly as productive and profitable as companies where employees feel more connected to their work.

So yes, add this study to the list of poor or mediocre economic indicators for the year—but take heart as well. After all, a new year awaits us along with opportunities for improvement.

And things could always be worse. At least we’re not Congress. A poll released Tuesday shows that many more Americans—a record-breaking 86 percent—are disengaged with it.

Now that’s a really bad number.

George Hanlin is a consultant at FlashPoint.

Image: Stuart Miles

This post currently has no responses.

In part 1 of, The Secret to Gaining Competitive Advantage, we discussed ways organizations seek to create competitive advantage by optimizing employee performance and engagement. We determined that a fundamental contributor to employee performance/engagement is the work environment¹. I introduced a tool to help us identify the variables that influence the behavior of an employee and to help us diagnose any performance problem—The Human Performance System (HPS)². The HPS is comprised of the five components illustrated below.

In part 1 we examined potential input factors that can impact optimal performance and engagement. In this post I will share potential performer, output, consequences, and feedback factors.

To apply this to your organization, think about an employee who is underperforming. Ask yourself the questions below. Any “no” response indicates a potential problem that bears investigation.  

Performer Factors

• Has the required level of knowledge and skill for each position been identified?
• Is a systematic training program in place?
• Do employees have the willingness to perform (given the incentives available)?

 Consequence Components

• Are there sufficient positive consequences to perform (financial and non-financial)?
• Are incentives meaningful, administered fairly, and in proper relationship to the level of accomplishment?
• Are there any disincentives to perform (the employee is asked to complete the work of co-workers because he/she is more efficient)?

Feedback Components³

• Do managers provide feedback on a consistent, regular basis?
• Is manager feedback specific and performance-based?
• Do managers immediately praise employees for progress against goals?
• Do managers immediately re-direct employees when performance gaps are caused by a lack of competence?
• Do managers immediately reprimand employees when performance gaps are caused by a lack of personal commitment?

References 

1. Thomas F. Gilbert, Human Competence: Engineering Worthy Performance (San Francisco: Pfeiffer, 2007). View this book on Amazon.com
2. Geary A. Rummler, Serious Performance Consulting According to Rummler (San Francisco: Pfeiffer, 2007). View this book on Amazon.com
3. Ken Blanchard, Leading at a Higher Level: Blanchard on Leadership and Creating High Performing Organizations, rev. ed. (Upper Saddle River, N.J.: FT Press, 2010). View this book on Amazon.com

Bill Mugavin is a consultant at FlashPoint. He focuses his consulting in the areas of organizational development, and leadership and management development.

This post currently has 2 responses.

Many of the books I am reading emphasize optimizing employee performance and engagement in order to create a competitive advantage. Ideas presented include providing employees with career development plans, designing engagement programs, offering flexible scheduling, etc. All of these play a role in optimizing performance/engagement. Based on my consulting and operations management experience, I recommend managers and human resource professionals also examine a fundamental contributor to employee performance/engagement—the work environment. 

The work environment has a significant influence on employee productivity and goal achievement¹. Goal achievement impacts an employee’s sense of accomplishment; a positive sense of accomplishment increases job satisfaction and engagement².  

Therefore, it is important to identify aspects of the work environment that can impact an employee’s ability to perform and engage. I recommend an excellent tool—the Human Performance System (HPS)³. The HPS describes the variables that influence the behavior of an employee and can be used to diagnose any performance problem. The HPS is comprised of the five components illustrated below.

In this post I will share potential input factors that can impact optimal performance and engagement. In part 2, I will share potential performer, output, consequence, and feedback factors.  

To apply this information to your organization, think about an employee who is underperforming. Ask yourself the questions below. Any “no” response indicates a potential problem that may need investigation.   

Input Factors

• Are competency models and job descriptions available?
• Does the job allow for the use of a variety of skills and abilities, for the freedom to make decisions, and is it considered important inside the organization?
• Are job outputs and standards linked to process requirements?
• Are job steps/tasks in a logical sequence?
• Have clear performance expectations been communicated (SMART Goals)?
• Are the necessary resources available?
• Have the right people been recruited, selected, and placed?

References

1. Thomas F. Gilbert, Human Competence: Engineering Worthy Performance (San Francisco: Pfeiffer, 2007). View this book on Amazon.com
2. Ken Blanchard, Leading at a Higher Level: Blanchard on Leadership and Creating High Performing Organizations, rev. ed. (Upper Saddle River, N.J.: FT Press, 2010). View this book on Amazon.com
3. Geary A. Rummler, Serious Performance Consulting According to Rummler (San Francisco: Pfeiffer, 2007). View this book on Amazon.com

Bill Mugavin is a consultant at FlashPoint. He focuses his consulting in the areas of organizational development, and leadership and management development.

This post currently has 1 response.

Engagement research repeatedly shows that employees look to opportunities for growth and development for continued engagement, but it’s not enough to encourage participation in a learning exercise; to fully maximize the experience, the participant’s manager needs to be involved to help facilitate the development process.

In a 2009 ASTD (American Society of Training and Development) research paper, The Value of Evaluation, authors explore the complex issues of learning evaluation and measuring the success of training initiatives. While the paper is full of valuable information for learning professionals, there is one particular message that resonated with me—learning professionals have a tremendous opportunity to leverage the participant’s manager in the development process. Unfortunately, I don’t think that the participants’ managers always understand their role or how they can support.

For example, in the research paper, authors shared results from a study in which managers were asked to what extent they are held accountable for setting goals with employees prior to training and for giving employees opportunities to use new knowledge after training. As you can see below, the percentage of managers who are setting goals with employees prior to training is very small. The case is similar with the percentage of managers giving employees opportunities to use new knowledge after training. I believe that if each of these activities happened more often, it would have a tremendous impact on the transfer of learning from training to job performance.

So, what’s the message? HR and learning professionals who are leading/supporting training initiatives need to ensure that managers are involved in the process. Below are some activities that you can incorporate into your development process:

• Prior to the design of any training/development, meet with the participants’ managers to find out what the needs are. Ask them what success looks like for their employee’s participation in the training.
• Educate/coach managers to support the development of their employees.
• Coach managers/provide clear expectations on their role in following up with employees after training and their role in giving employees an opportunity to use the skills learned in training.
• Provide a participant/manager conversation guide to structure conversations during a training/development initiative. This will help ensure that participants are connecting with their managers throughout the development process.

Andrea Moore is a Senior Consulting Manager at FlashPoint; Andrea focuses on leadership development, training and performance improvement solutions, and one-on-one coaching.

This post currently has no responses.