Tagged with Consulting

Change & Communications Study Report: Implications For Asia Pacific

Towers Watson (my employer) recently released a report on The 2011/12 Change & Communication ROI Study report. It has great insights about what could organizations do to build Clarity, Confidence and Community in their organizations through effective communications and change management. While I leave you to enjoy the full report, I found some of the charts interesting as they showed geographical breakdowns including Asia-Pacific level data.

In terms of ensuring that employees are business literate and have a good view of organizational performance, there seems to be little variation across the geographical regions. Even so, Asia-Pacific sits at the bottom of the pack on these important issues related to providing clarity and building a sense of connection.

The second issue I spotted was related to Employee Value Proposition (EVP). Given the nature of the talent race in Asia, I think it’s quite a hot issues these days. And interestingly, a higher percentage of Asia-Pacific companies report that they have a clearly defined EVP. However, when it comes to having a segmented EVP approach (e.g. for high performers, high potentials etc.), these companies fare a bit badly. Also, the bigger question is how effectively is the EVP winning mind-share in the talent market.

And as social media powers the new world of communications, there is a fair distance that companies in Asia-Pacific have to go. Only about 30% of the organizations report that they have a documented social media policy in place, the corresponding number for the USA is 77%! Moreover, only a handful of Asia-Pacific companies report that they have the right tools to measure the effectiveness of social media. So, first there is an adoption issue and then, if measurement is not effective, then establishing a clear business case for social media will be a challenge for companies. As for me, I am more interested in finding out how Asia Pacific companies are leveraging these channels for building an open, transparent and collaborative workplace.

All graphs and data credits to Towers Watson
Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Building A Sustainable Employee Engagement Strategy

Here is a link to an article I published on Towers Watson’s website, titled “Building A Sustainable Engagement Strategy”. Through this article, I urge companies to take a hard look at their employee research constructs and make sure that the frameworks they are using are helping them focus on the right issues. We need to make sure that the Employee Engagement models we are using are evolving with the times.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

How Can HR Use Engagement Surveys to Drive Business Performance?

Several companies invest thousands of dollars in running Employee Engagement surveys. Typically, they use the survey results to benchmark workplace experiences with other organizations,  determine enterprise-level priorities, drive key HR programs, set engagement-related KPIs, involve managers in the action planning process etc. But one of the key elements missing is how do we use these insights from the survey, fortify them and use them to really drive business performance. I often find that we miss connecting those critical dots. If HR has to ‘get a seat at the table’, then all it’s initiatives should link back to business performance, including employee engagement.

I could think of one potential approach, and it may be suitable to larger size organizations with a decent number of “units of analysis” i.e. bank branches, retail stores, production sites etc. If we have sufficient number of units to study, the first step would be to start linking the employee engagement survey data to business metrics. Think sales, profitability, productivity, employee attrition, customer survey scores, safety incidents, customer waiting time etc. Then you would need some analytical wizardry to examine how these metrics link to employee survey data. Do highly engaged bank branches have higher loan growth and higher net interest margin? Or do low engagement manufacturing plants showlow productivity as well? Or worse, the linkage is not meaningful or not strong enough (in which case you really need to go back to the drawing board to design a good survey). Such linkages help to establish the validity of your employee research frameworks and help create buy-in among the senior leadership team.

The next step is really to take it a notch further up. Based on the above linkage analysis, you would have identified your high / average / low performing units. Now, the way HR can really add value and improve business performance is by replicating the high performing units. How do you do that? Well, you try to examine what differentiates these high performing units from others. You could look at a range of variables for employees in these groups – age, tenure, experience, competencies, managerial practices – anything that can hypothetically differentiate performance. And yes, you could also connect it all back to the employee survey and see what issues are these “high engagement – high performance” units particularly satisfied on as compared to other units. Again, we are just looking for factors which can differentiate or even predict engagement and performance

Only when you have insights of this depth, then you could work out a plan for replicating such high-performance. Such insights can provide inputs into recruitment plans, talent management, rewards, training & development, career progression etc.  And all this will potentially have much more credibility since you have validated these against business outcomes.

What do you think? How are you using employee survey data to improve business performance? Drop in a line if you would like to discuss this in details.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Designing an Effective Recognition Program (Interview)

A lot of employee research highlights the importance of “recognition” in enhancing employee engagement and reinforcing the right behaviours that benefit the company as well as the employees. Often, I find companies taking a slightly ad-hoc approach to recognition and often such programs end up not being targeted, frequent and in the true sense, rewarding.

To better understand what makes for a robust recognition program, I did a short interview with Derek Irvine of Globoforce. Derek is Globoforce’s Vice President for Client Strategy & Consulting and is one of the leading voices on employee engagement, strategic recognition, talent management and business performance.

Q. There is something you call “Strategic Recognition”. Could you share with me what Strategic Recognition is all about and how it benefits organisations?

Derek: Strategic recognition means integrating employee recognition with a company’s core values and strategic goals. This helps employees understand the behavioural norms you have identified as necessary for achieving the desired business outcome—and strategic recognition does this for every employee in your company, regardless of where they live and work. The benefits of strategic recognition can be categorised in three ways:

1) Increased alignment with the company values and strategic objectives to ensure employees are recognised and rewarded only when they achieve desired targets by behaving in ways the company has deemed appropriate to success.

2) Increased employee engagement because employees intimately understand how their daily efforts contribute to achieving the bigger picture, resulting in increased productivity and performance. Our clients regularly realise double-digit increases in employee engagement in less than a year.

3) Increased retention of employees by ensuring employees know their value to the organisation and also building stronger bonds between employees, colleagues and managers.

Q. Human Resources professionals often draw out recognition programs for their organisations. What are some of the missing ingredients in such programs based on your experiences? What are the key elements to consider while designing such programs?

Derek: In some organisations, the first hurdle to clear is helping those responsible for designing their organisation’s recognition program to understand that recognition is not a Years of Service or Long Service award program. At least, employee recognition is not just Years of Service. In the same vein, employee recognition is not just sales or customer service incentive initiatives.

The first step is therefore broadening the understanding of employee recognition to anything and everything you as an organisation, manager or even peer do to acknowledge, praise and appreciate the hard work, success and achievements of colleagues. Once that understanding is in place, we can move into the key elements to consider when designing a truly strategic recognition program. We call these key elements the Five Tenets of Strategic Recognition:

1. A Clear Global Strategy for a consolidated recognition program flexible enough to allow for peer recognition, spot recognition, milestone anniversary recognition, etc., while creating visibility and auditability into the recognition budget spend across the globe for improved governance.

2. Executive Sponsorship with Defined Goals to signal senior management support and establish a management methodology including clear targets for success and meaningful measurement and reporting functionality linked with company strategic objectives.

3. Aligned with Company Values to ensure all recognised activities are associated with a company value, helping employees understand how their direct actions and behaviours impact achievement of company goals and giving managers dashboard insight into the traction of each company value by employee, region, division or department.

4. Opportunity for All to Participate to empower and unite the entire workforce, not just the top performers, behind the company’s strategic objectives and values. Top performing companies ensure 80% of the global workforce will be touched by the recognition program each year, largely through peer-to-peer recognition.

5. Offer the Reward of Choice to reinforce the recognition recipient’s positive association with the company through personally memorable, culturally relevant, locally based rewards.

Q. Is there a measurable ROI on strategic recognition programs?

Derek: Yes. Strategic recognition is proven to increase employee engagement by double digits, improve employee performance and reduce employee turnover. Gallup found in research last fall that employees do not become engaged just because they work for a financially successful organisation. Rather, employees who are engaged drive financial results. And those results are significant. In their 2007-2008 Global Workforce Study, Towers Watson found that companies with high employee engagement vastly outperform low-employee engagement firms in terms of operating income, income growth rate, and earnings per share. In an earlier study, Towers Watson calculated that a 15% improvement in levels of employee engagement correlates with a 2% improvement in operating margin.

In terms of retention, Gallup found organisations with high employee engagement had 37% less employee turnover. Considering the cost of replacing just one employee is 75-150% of that person’s salary, increasing retention alone can have a significant impact on the bottom line.

Aside from the benefits of increasing employee engagement with strategic recognition, the ROI benefits of strategic recognition directly on employee performance and productivity are profound. Especially in today’s world of rapid change, the ability to communicate to employees changing priorities and company strategies in a way that makes sense to employees in their daily work is itself a primary benefit. Quickly re-focussing employees precisely on most critical tasks in a positive way ensures employees remain at their most productive.

Q. In your opinion, are non-monetary forms of rewards & recognition as effective as monetary forms?

Derek: Non-monetary rewards are far more effective than monetary ones. Much research supports the fallacy of “give them more money” as a reward strategy. The most obvious example is the bonus culture that led to egregious behaviours in the financial world and, in many ways, the Great Recession. I argue base compensation in these firms should be much higher, with regular, frequent recognition of achievements and no ridiculously high year-end cash bonus.

Cash is an inappropriate reward mechanism because cash is the currency of compensation – of base pay. To be differentiated in a recipient’s mind, rewards must have a different currency.

These non-monetary rewards can still have economic value to the recipient and do have their place in a strategic program. Non-cash rewards in the form of gift cards to local high-value, lifestyle venues around the world take rewards beyond compensation to trophy award status. Recipients can choose rewards in their local neighborhoods, supporting their local economies and vendors they trust, or they can choose to enjoy rewards anywhere in the world. Options are limitless – shopping, dining, travel, adventures, sporting events, concerts, shows, even charities around the world. Employees who are deserving of recognition are also deserving of memorable rewards with unrestricted choice.

Q. Finally, what are 3 recent books that you enjoyed reading?

Derek: 

1. Delivering Happiness. The Zappos story is great in terms of follow your passion, and have the courage to build the right culture.

2. The Thank You Economy. What he describes as a mega trend for brands and the impact of all things social is going to be enormous for company cultures, and how to actively manage your culture – something I’m passionate about too.

3. Good Boss, Bad Boss. Contemporary management practices are shifting fast, the bad bosses had better catch up quick, or they’ll fall off the cliff before they even notice!

——————————————————————————————————————————————————

That’s it for now folks! I thank Derek for making time for this and you could also follow Derek’s blog “Recognize This!”.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

PWC Research : The Talent Race

I was looking at a recent research report from PWC on its Global CEO Survey 2011. Apart from interesting data on strategic priorities, innovation, business confidence, sustainability etc., it also touches upon the talent agenda through a section titled “The Talent Race”. I pulled out a few slices of data, which I found interesting. And since I am in Asia, I was keen on comparing the Global data with Asia-Pacific data. The chart below talks about the key challenges highlighted by CEOs, considering the talent required for business success over the next 3 years:

The top challenges highlighted for Asia are – limited supply of candidates with the right skills, competitors poaching talent, global talent deployment and inflexibility of talented people. As the Asia growth machine turns faster, companies are definitely feeling a talent squeeze. But are too many companies simply “buying” talent, rather than investing to “build, deploy, grow, retain” talent? Also, interestingly, “providing attractive career paths” is cited as less of a challenge by CEOs in Asia. I am not entirely sure how to read this because most of my experiences seems to suggest that this is a continual challenge for companies here. Is there a potential disconnect between what leaders and employees think?

The report also states that over 80% of the CEOs globally are seeking a rethink of their people strategy. When asked about what changes they anticipate in their people strategy over the next year, the response are as follows:

Use of non-financial rewards to motivate staff is right at the top of the list. (“Meaning” is the new money?) Leaders in Asia are also looking at deploying more employees on global assignments as they expand. There is lesser focus on incentivizing younger employees differently, which makes me again wonder if focusing on age-groups is useful or should we really focus on “life-stages” of employees. In Asia-Pacific, there is the same level of focus on attracting and retaining women in the workforce as the global levels, but the focus on recruiting / retaining older workers is higher in Asia-Pacific.

Of course, these are just some of the insights from the study. Tell me what else you found interesting!

Tagged , , , , , , , ,
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.