Employee Engagement Survey: Initiative vs. Reward

CEOs don’t get many chances to hear the unfiltered voices of their employees. So when you’re conducting your next employee engagement survey, don’t let that opportunity slip by. Let me give a real-life example. Recently I worked with a tech company that had grown rapidly due to bold innovative thinking. But the CEO was concerned that they were losing their boldness and innovativeness. So I added 2 questions to their employee engagement survey… Bold innovative thinking is critical to ABC’s success. Bold innovative thinking is rewarded in ABC. When we got the data back, the CEO’s fears were confirmed. Here’s the chart for those 2 questions…  The first thing you should notice is the huge gap between “bold innovative thinking is required” and “bold innovative thinking is rewarded.” Getting a 6 on a 7-point scale is pretty good, so the CEO’s message about the need for innovation was reaching most of the employees. But the employees didn’t feel as though their boldness and innovation was being rewarded. And the 1.3-point gap between those two scores is absolutely huge on an employee engagement survey. Now, what’s the cause of this breakdown? To discover this, we ran a heatmap analysis that showed the scores for these questions broken-out by various managers. Here’s a simplified and sanitized version (to protect confidentiality): You can see that while Manager F seems to be doing a pretty good job (at least relatively),Managers A and D are experiencing large gaps between innovative thinking between critical and it being rewarded. This kind of analysis shouldn’t be used as some kind of witch-hunt; it’s not about finding dissenters and punishing them, rather it’s about identifying root causes and solving them.In one short conversation, it became clear that Manager A had received marching orders that were at odds with the concept of bold innovative thinking. And that conflict was easily resolved. By contrast, Manager D (a former programmer) was in over their head and just didn’t want to be a manager. So the CEO put them back into a programmer role where they thrived. This is just the tip of the iceberg. But I really want to make one simple point: Employee engagement surveys aren’t just for making employees feel good, they’re also for ensuring the success of your business. CEOs don’t get many opportunities to hear from every employee, nor do they get many opportunities to test the efficacy of their strategic initiatives. Not every CEO wants bold innovative thinking. But whatever your strategy, an employee engagement survey gives CEOs a rare opportunity to test whether their strategy has permeated every nook-and-cranny of the organization. And that’s how smart CEOs use employee engagement surveys.

The Perfect 4-Step Interview Question

Mark Murphy, Founder & CEO

Bringing Science to Leadership Training and Employee Surveys
http://leadershipiq.com

The Perfect 4-Step Interview Question

"Hiring for Attitude"  

The second half of this well-researched “Hiring for Attitude” white paper offers practical advice on how to ask great interview questions to reveal if the applicant is suitable for a high-performance workplace.

First, Mark Murphy lists three big questions NOT to ask:

1. Clichés:

       “Tell me about yourself.”

       “What are your strengths?”

       “What are your weaknesses?”

These are not inherently bad questions but rather questions, which guarantee canned, rehearsed answers.

2. Hypothetical Questions: 

      “If you were an animal, what kind of animal would you be?”  

       These type of questions are “quirky, nonsensical questions that are useless to your hiring process”.

3. Leading Questions:

      “So listen, Mark, we have a team-friendly, family-oriented type of culture here. 
       You are going to fit well into this culture, right?”  

      “Well, yes, I am. In fact, my last boss told me my best attribute was working in a team-             based, family-oriented culture.”

      When you lead the question (hint the answer) , the effectiveness of your question is lost.

The questions that are revealing and relevant are those, which reveal the most       important as well as least desirable attitudinal characteristics of your organization. Mark Murphy recommends using two questioning techniques, which bring out a past situation and how the employee reacted to it:

I. Behavioral Interviewing Technique

             e.g. “Tell me about a time when…”

   

II. Hanging Question Technique

            e.g. Where the employee is given “an assignment he doesn’t agree with”

            e.g. When “project specifications are changed at the last minute”

            e.g. When “the employee is given an assignment outside of his/her job role”

Six torpedoes

Mark cautions, however, not to add six little words that torpedo your question’s effectiveness:

            “…and how did you solve it?”

            “…how did you react to it?”

            “…what did you tell your boss?”

These turn your questions into unproductive leading questions.

The Perfect 4-Step Interview Question:  
Determining Coachability and High-Performance

Mark next lays out his killer interview question strategy that gets to the heart of the job applicant’s coachability – the leading indicator of new hire long-term success (see prior blog post).

As Mark Murphy puts it:

             “There is no point in investing time and energy in people who

               do not respond to positive feedback.”

Leadership IQ has developed and field-tested the following methodology for determining coachability and high-performance.

Step 1:  Make them believe you’re going to talk to their previous boss.

Ask for the full name of their present or most recent boss; then confirm the spelling.

            “Did she go by Kate or Katherine? And how do you spell Johnson?”

This step is key to the whole questioning process, which psychologically causes the applicant to answer more truthfully.

Step 2:  Ask them to describe their boss.

            “Tell me what Kate was like as a boss.”

Follow up with:

            “Tell me a specific example,” or “What was that like?”

The answers will tell you what the applicant is looking for in a boss. If there last boss sounds like you, and they loved working for him/her, that is a great sign.

Step 3:  Ask them what their boss considered their strengths.

            “When I talk to Kate, what will she tell me are your biggest strengths?”

Asking about their strengths before their weaknesses keeps the applicant talking freely on a more pleasant note. If you ask them straight out what they think their strengths are, you will get a canned answer about what they think you want to hear.

Step 4:  Ask them what their boss considered their weaknesses.

            “Now everyone has some weaknesses,

              so when I talk to Kate, what will she tell me yours are?”

This is the most critical question but will not produce insights into the applicant unless the first three questions have been successfully followed. Murphy says to listen to answers on two levels: 1) is the weakness something you can live with? and 2) if they answer they cannot think of any weaknesses or they do not know what the boss would say, then you have hit upon a strong disqualifier.

         “If someone can’t hear and assimilate constructive criticism, they’re not coachable.

          And even without formal conversations with their boss,

          if they can’t put themselves in their boss’ shoes and anticipate their assessment,

          they’re going to be a nightmare to try and manage.”

Brain Research Helps Leaders Lead

It is nice to see that corporate training is beginning to catch up with what academia has been researching and implementing for many years now, namely, how brain research can make better learners and increase productivity. Michael Vaughn's article FiveWays to Use Brain Science to Become a Better Leader (Chief Learning Officer, March 2014, p.36) is a very worthwhile read for anyone in a leadership position. Here is a quick summary. 

Five Ways to Become a Better Leader

FAIRNESS: Being fair is better that being right.

Researchers have discovered that when treating people unfairly, the brain (amygdala) processes these negative emotions to a deep and lasting degree. Leaders who create feelings of unfairness in employees lessen their relationship, respect, acceptance and sense of equality.

SOCIAL:  Introvert or extrovert does not matter; social interaction does.

Our brains are social. We need goals and interaction, which promotes these outputs. In contrast, most workplace cultures demand improved results over improved social interactions. The negative consequence over time is that "even the high performers will feel devalued, less secure or even unfairly treated."

SLEEP: The brain needs sleep.

There are still lots of debate, but during sleep, many brain researchers believe that we "consolidate memories, make new connections, conserve energy and unconsciously chip away at problems." If Thomas Edison had slept more, he likely would have made fewer mistakes, and therefore, would have been even more productive.

ATTENTION: Stop multitasking; focus on one task.

Stanford University brain researchers and other researchers have well established the superiority of focusing on a single task rather than multitasking. "When task compete for the same mental resources, the quality of results of all tasks diminishes." Multitaskers will likely experience decline in energy and quality of thought.

PREDICTING: We are wired to predict, but keep perspectives open.

Our brain is busy predicting when we try to make sense of something regarding its outcome. Most predictions, however, are inaccurate or incomplete. Michael Vaughn suggests, “If leaders hold on to predictions, it may stop them from seeking new perspectives.”

Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking

CLICK this TEDTalk link

"Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking" by Susan Cain is a must-read book. This book better defines what leadership is and where innovation comes from. Leadership is not only the type-A, charismatic, high-energy personality nor is innovation the product of group collaboration. Check out Susan Cain on the TEDTalk video:  http://lnkd.in/_N3AhM

Rypple: HR Goals, Feedback, Coaching, Recognition and Performance

The Social Way to Improve
Performance at Work

Rypple has excellent applications for using internal company emails to coach employees and teams, manage their goals and execute valid performance evaluations. Click on video link below for an introduction to what Rypple has to offer.

Reducing New Hire Failure: Hiring for Attitude

“46% of newly hired employees will fail within 18 months, 

while only 19% will achieve unequivocal success.”

What an astonishing and distressing statement for any HR, L&D or corporate leader to read. This was in the opening stunner paragraph in Mark Murphy’s Leadership IQ white paper Hiring for Attitude: Research and Tools to Skyrocket your Success Rate. This white paper is well written, and Mark offers excellent statistical insights, which lead to positive solutions. First, look at these revealing stats from the Leadership IQ study:

      

 I. Study Results:     New Hire Success Factors  

Here are five areas distilled from the study data of 5247 interviews with

managers and the performance, personality and potential of new hires:       

·      Coachability (26%): The ability to accept and implement feedback from bosses, colleagues, customers and others.

·      Emotional Intelligence (23%): The ability to understand and manage one's own emotions, and accurately assess others' emotions.

·      Motivation (17%): Sufficient drive to achieve one's full potential and excel in the job.

·      Temperament (15%): Attitude and personality suited to the particular job and work environment.

·      Technical Competence (11%): Functional or technical skills required to do the job.

As is evident, coachability, emotional intelligence, motivation and temperament are more predictive of new hire success or failure than technical competence. The study also found that different interviewing strategies (e.g., behavioral, chronological, case study, etc.) had no significant difference in the failure rate. Those managers with the greatest success, however, emphasized interpersonal and motivational interview questions.                             

 II. Preventing New Hire Failure

Effective Interview Questions:

Leadership IQ recommends that managers focus interviewing on the first four factors above  

(coachability, emotional intelligence, motivation and temperament). Unfortunately, the most common interviewing approach centers on technical competence, which is easy to assess but is a “lousy predictor of whether a newly hired employee will succeed or fail”.

Two Quick Tests To Discover the Attitudes You Want:

Test #1: Finding Your High-Performer Attitudes

What are the distinguishing attitudinal characteristics that make these people such a joy to work with?

Examples of your responses might include:

·      They take ownership of problems

·      They’re highly collaborative

·      They aren’t afraid to make mistakes

·      They meet commitments

·      They’re empathetic towards customers’ and colleagues’ needs

Test #2: Finding Your Low-Performer Attitudes

What are the attitudes these folks have that make getting stuck in traffic on the way to work seem like a blessing?

Examples of your responses might include:

·      They always find the negative

·      They gossip

·      They respond to feedback with an argument

·      They only do the bare minimum expected of them

·      They get overwhelmed by multiple demands and priorities

·      They always find someone else to blame for their mistakes

·      They’re unwilling to leave their comfort zone

The financial costs for hiring failures can cost millions of dollars, even for small companies. Leadership IQ has done hiring managers and their companies a great service with this white paper. 

Coming soon from this white paper:  "The Perfect 4-Step Interview Question"

      

Google's LEARNING IN THE CLOUD

On February 9, I attended ASTD-San Francisco’s 2011 series "The Future is Now" Series: #2 - The Future of Leadership Training. In a brief two hours, I experienced an interactive session to learn about the future of leadership development. Julie Clow, Learning & Organizational Development Manager of Google (photo), gave a captivating and stimulating presentation by that got my creative learning wheels spinning. Let me start by describing the philosophical and practical differences Goggle University employs vis-a-vis the current, or shall I say, “traditional-eLearning-blended-learning” approach.

Google University calls their leadership program gLearning at Google (Learning in the "Cloud"): Foundations of Leadership & Teamwork. The reference to the “Cloud” (i.e. SaaS, PaaS and IaaS applications) immediately sets gLearning apart and is the heart and soul of the delivery mechanism for Google University. 

Below is a simple comparison of typical eLearning and Google’s learning in the Cloud approach:

Here is a bulleted summary of Google’s Foundations of Leadership & Teamwork (FLT) program:

Commitment:

• Total = 19 hours
• Self-paced work: ~3 hours/week for 4 weeks = 12 hours
• Debrief sessions: 2-hour launch; three 1-hour weekly debrief sessions;
• 2-hour conclusion = 7 hours

Program Length:

• Content spread over four weeks, one module per week

Program Content:

• Launch: Leadership@Google
• Week 1: Self Awareness
• Week 2: Self Management
• Week 3: Teaming
• Week 4 and Conclusion: Influence and Leading Up

Context:

• Clear alignment of learning objectives with competencies/skill gaps;
• Clear connection to "What's in it for me?"

Content:

• Free off-the-shelf content (YouTube, EBSCO Business articles)
• Internal content (Knols, Wikis, etc.)
• High-quality leadership content (Assessments, PDI Ninth House courses)

Organization:

• Build progression of content
• Moving Knowledge Engine to pace activities to individual learners

Community:

• Synchronous and asynchronous collaboration components to foster the exchange of ideas among participants

Testing/Assessment:

• 360-degree behavioral assessments, eLearning quizzes, pre/post tests

Currently, the FLT program has completed two pilot programs; Julie Clow and the Google FLT group have carefully documented the results. The initial Pilot 1 achieved 83% completion and the next iteration Pilot 2 had 93% completion – great results demonstrating strong participant interest, motivation and professional growth. I am looking forward to seeing future iterations of Google's FLT program. I believe Learning in the Cloud is here to stay.

There are many more details about Google’s FLT Learning in the Cloud, which are not included in this blog. Information is available at http://bit.ly/glearning or add a comment to this blog post.