"Employee Engagement"… is the new Buzz Word(s) of the day. A recent "Google" search reflects over 800,000 potential hits on sites offering wisdom or potential surveys on Employee Engagement especially for Gen X and Gen Y employees.

Before a reflection and sharing data on the new Present Environment, and Future Ramifications, allow me a moment to reflect on the past… Many of us in Senior Leadership positions have suggested that our employees are our greatest asset. In many organizations, it may be a case of words speaking louder than actions.

Leaders of the Past

I think most Leaders would subjectively agree that employees are more likely to produce in an environment where they are generally satisfied and comfortable. But many Leaders often fall short on two major assumptions. First, we have a tendency to define "satisfied" in traditional terms of financial compensation/benefits, and second, we have a tendency to interpret employee perceptions through "our" traditional frames of reference. Maybe it is not your fault, or even to be expected as we are all products of our traditional cultures. But concepts such as "Trust" and "Feeling Valued" by employees are clearly replacing pure money as catalysts for dis-engagement and turnover. Many Leaders just don’t recognize or understand the shift in employee values because it forces us to change the way we perceive our organizational effectiveness.

But perhaps most importantly, historically it has been really difficult to quantify any correlation between workplace environment and financial return. And since we have been trained over the last 75 years to judge success based on ROI, and the efficiency of the "process," if we cannot measure the return on people engagement, it becomes a good idea, but ultimately, a low priority. Traditional Management Theory, taught most of us, "measure it, or dismiss it…" Thus training budgets are usually the first to be cut, especially training for critical soft skills, Leadership, and I am not even going to discuss senior management’s "old school" perception of training related to Culture.

All of that is changing, and changing fast. The statistical data is overwhelming. Recent research led by Gallop (Q12) and many other quality surveys, including those by ISR, are changing the priority of workplace environment, especially an environment where the employees feel as though they are "Engaged" in the Mission. I believe this can be a tremendous future advantage companies or organizations with the courage and foresight to look inside their organizations for a long term sustainable competitive advantage.

So how do we define this Buzz around Employee Engagement? ISR Global Research Director Patrick Kulesa defines Employee Engagement as: "Committed, Believe in the Values of the Company, Feel Pride in their Employer and Go the Extra Mile – and Business Results."…

In short, engaged employees feel as though they are truly valued at work. Engaged employees feel as though they directly contribute towards the Mission, and enthusiastically communicate the value of their organization. Recent data reflects the transformation from warm and fuzzy directly to the bottom line. But understanding the radically different set of values of today’s employees is a necessary catalyst for engagement success.

Leaders of the Present

For those Leaders looking for support data: 2005 ISR Study (over 600,000 employees worldwide) revealed that those organizations with High Employee Engagement realized a 5.75% difference in operating margin and a 3.44% difference in net profit margin versus low engagement companies. The Gallop research reflects only 29% of the three million surveyed employees felt engaged, 55% not engaged, and 16% actively not engaged via an interview with Co-Author Curt Coffman, First Break All the Rules. Gallop estimates that this last 16% of actively not engaged employees cost the American Economy over $ 350 Million per year in lost productivity.

There are two critical potential danger signals for Leaders of today. First, of the 55% that are not engaged, they are typically not negative towards the organization in any way, almost a sleeping danger or cultural liability. And secondly, national statistics reflect a direct correlation between the length of time an employee spends with an organization and being more likely to become not engaged. For many of us, we are never as excited as we are in our first week of work. We join our organizations believing we can make a difference in the lives of our customers and co-workers. Then in some most companies, over time we feel less valued, or as though we have less of an active role in contributing to the value related principals that attracted us in the first place and then our engagement declines.

Author Leigh Branham suggests, "According to more than 80% of employees, it’s not that there’s greener grass on the other side of the fence; it’s the preponderance of negative factors in their current workplaces-from poor management practices to toxic workplace cultures-that essentially push them toward the door." Or in fact Cultures that move employees lower on the engagement scale. As many seemingly successful companies have lifetime employees, we cannot assume that they remain engaged in our "Holy Grail", Customer Service, or dedication to the Mission, either internally or externally.

Engagement Test

In addition to investing in employee satisfaction surveys (highly recommended considering the national data) to measure employee engagement, I might suggest another test. What if we were to look at the five most significant ideas in the last year, that moved our Teams ahead of the curve in terms of "Improving the Lives of Clients or Co-Workers," (internally as well as externally)? How many of those five ideas came from within our organizations? How many of those five ideas originated from "engaged" hourly employees striving to make a difference in the Service-Centric or Mission-Driven Culture? Can you identify five?

Future Leaders

The most effective way to engage employees is to involve each of them in the culture. Leaders need to be consistently talking and listening about Service Values and Service Missions to employees offering them an opportunity to share ways in which they contributed towards the Mission, then acknowledge and reward or recognize them. This is what author John Kotter (Leading Change) refers to by continuing to build the coalition, and celebrating short term wins.

But most critically, it is imperative for Leaders to "Walk the Walk." Actions speak far louder than words when leading by example. I am encouraging Leaders to look in the mirror when it comes to consistency in programs, incentives, and engagement as it  directly contributes to the Service Mission. In my hundreds of interviews with Managers and Employees, I am often drawn to the "inconsistencies" identified by employees that have yet to be recognized by Leadership. If you ask and listen, they will share… These inconsistencies can be a significant cancer to any potential cultural shift to increased employee engagement.

The rules of Leadership are changing rapidly, not simply evolving. The powerful contribution to the bottom line and conduit for growth that is a direct result of Employee Engagement critical for all of us in the future. Engaged employees will create more loyal Customers and Employees, creating more opportunities for growth.

Many of us in Senior Leadership positions have suggested that our employees are our greatest asset. I encourage you to find new ways to engage your employees in the effort to live your "Holy Grail" and put actions way ahead of simple words.

Michael Muetzel

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Michael_Muetzel

Author of They’re Not Aloof…Just Generation X, Unlock the Mysteries to Today’s Human Capital Management

Mike Muetzel is a nationally recognized Author, Keynote Speaker and Leadership expert. His work has been featured in the national media including, The Associated Press, Bloomberg Television, Boardroom Magazine, The Manager’s Intelligence Report, The IBM Small Business Advocate, and The Boston Globe to name a few.

He is often referenced as a national expert on the unique characteristics of today’s employees. He has an extensive corporate background including nine years with Yamaha Motor Manufacturing Corporation where he sat on the Executive Committee. His prestigious clients include Fed Ex Freight, Kohler, Hilton Hotels, Motorola, Wyndham, Keebler and The Federal Aviation Administration among others. In addition, he is a former member of the faculty at Clayton State University, School of Business. University. In the words of Best Selling Author Ken Blanchard, "Mike understands what will make companies tick in the future, it’s about maximizing the potential of your people…"    Visit http://www.unlockthemysteries.com

Those of us who have taken up coaching as a career do so because of a desire to have impact on people – to make a difference. Every professional coach knows that significant change takes time and, unfortunately, time is a resource that is becoming more precious every day. This was poignantly reflected in a recent one-question survey we conducted. We asked coaches to respond to the following question: “What’s your biggest challenge in achieving the level of impact you want for your clients?”

The number one response? “I need more time with my clients to have impact in their lives.” This response was voiced in different ways, “clients can’t stop long enough to change,” or “clients are in such a hurry for results that they won’t stay focused,” and “clients don’t stay long enough to benefit from our work.” No matter how it was said, the bottom line is time!

Article Source: http://www.bestmanagementarticles.com

About the Author:
Gary Jordan, Ph.D., has over 27 years of experience in clinical psychology, behavioral assessment, individual development, and coaching. He earned his doctorate in Clinical Psychology from the California School of Professional Psychology – Berkeley. He’s the co-founder of Vega Behavioral Consulting, Ltd., a consulting firm that specializes in helping people discover their true skills and talents. www.aciforcoaches.com

With the current world economy, companies dependence on globalization to stay competitive, the shifting of talent from one base in the world to another, Diversity is only set to rise and to take on new significance on impacting the bottom line of today’s organizations.

Indeed I believe the argument for Diversity has been made years ago and that argument has been answered and won time and time again. Diversity affects the bottom line of organization and its effects are seen to find its way into the marketing organization, the this in turn has an impact on the company’s products and services and in turn the marketing channels and marketing categories which these products are classified in. The results? More business more sales more targeted and satisfied customers which is the impact on the company’s bottom line.

With this in mind, it is imperative to Infuse Diversity into the Business Consciousness. So, what do I mean by that? In summary, Diversity should be an integral part of the company’s business practices as a matter of course. Diversity needs to be part of the company’s Strategy, Structures and Process, Performance Metrics And Awards and its Culture and Behavior.

Strategy

Diversity needs to be a part of the company’s vision and infused into the day to day consciousness of how we run our business. The outcome for this is for Diversity to be a key driver of business success. This will lead to establishing the organization’s presence in diverse markets, build an winning workforce and also develop the company’s image and reputation in diverse communities.

Structure And Processes

The objective here is to establish (if necessary) and strengthen partnerships and teams within the Human Resources community. Strategic partnership networks should also be formed to ensure diverse perspectives are at work to enhance the company’s ability to reach different marketplaces and communities.

Performance Metrics And Rewards

Their must be support and recognition from the management team for the Diversity champions. Global organization metrics need to be implemented and the individuals within the organization who are accountable for the Diversity program need to be identified and this needs to be communicated throughout the organization.

Culture And Behavior

The awareness of Diversity needs to be increased within all teams throughout the organization by setting up and communicating the relevant connection between Diversity, Inclusion, Innovation and the effect on the companies bottom line.

This framework while not complete is a good foundation to structure any company’s Diversity initiative around.

Some key points to emphasize are that Human Resources, the management team, Diversity Champions and those from the specific Dimensions Of Diversity must work together in order to be successful at ‘infusing Diversity into the business consciousness. In particular it is essential for the higher management team to be readily seen participating in Diversity initiatives and articulating the benefits of Diversity within the organization whilst making the link between the company’s Diversity program and the effect on the company’s bottom line.

Human Resources may well officially own the Diversity program and managers may well own their particular departments, whether that be Accounting, Manufacturing, Logistics or Marketing but but managers are inherently responsible for the success of the Diversity program and its Infusion into the business consciousness of the organization.

Article Source: http://refer.debrawhite.co.uk/Ic 

About the Author:
Stephen C Campbell (MBA, MSc, MCIM) has worked on diversity programs throughout Europe, Far East & U.S. whilst in the corporate sector. He runs a Business Consultancy and has a keen interest in working with corporations on the link between Diversity and Marketing Strategy. http://refer.debrawhite.co.uk/zpo

Although advance planning for resource allocation is the ideal scenario, many organizations found themselves caught short by the severe constraints imposed by the economic downturn. What are the alternatives when organizations are operating in crisis mode and there is no “Plan A?”

Given the need to make decisions about how to curtail their operations immediately, leaders have two options that can help them in the short-run: (1) increase inputs or (2) decrease outputs. Within each of these options, there are several alternatives, some of which will be more viable than others depending on the given situation. Let’s look at each set of options in turn, and examine their feasibility.

Increase Inputs
Here are four ways to increase inputs:
1. Delegate
2. Outsource
3. Work more hours
4. Increase efficiency

Alternatives #1-3 presume the availability of resources such as people (i.e., those to whom you can delegate things) and money (e.g., paying others to do the work, paying overtime). Organizations that are short of those resources are unlikely to be in a position to select those choices. Although some employers may argue that they could avoid paying overtime simply by having salaried staff work more hours, such a view is short-sighted: people will burn out quickly, and they will be very likely to leave the organization at the first opportunity. Thus for most organizations in crisis mode, increasing efficiency seems to be the most sustainable way to increase inputs in the face of scarce resources.

Decrease Outputs
Here are four ways to decrease outputs:
1. Delay the promised goods or services
2. Provide partial delivery of products or services
3. Reduce service or performance standards
4. Decrease the number of products or services

Although none of these alternatives may seem very palatable, in a crisis situation they may be preferable to not being able to achieve the organization’s mission at all. For example, some customers may be open to a delay or partial delivery due to their own financial situations. Others may be unhappy with a delay but will accept it as an alternative to non-delivery.
Reducing service or performance standards may be a viable option for some organizations. For example, one organization I worked with recently is justifiably proud of its tradition of providing “excellent” service across the board. Given severe budget constraints, however, its leaders now are considering the possibility that customers will find “very good” or “good” service levels acceptable, at least in the short-term. This will allow the organization to re-allocate some resources or to continue to operate in the absence of others. However, for an organization whose mission focuses on providing exceptional service, this option is not feasible – unless it revises its mission statement.

Decreasing the number of products or services actually may serve the organization well in the long-term as well as in the short-term. Most likely some customers will be disappointed to find fewer choices. Considering the alternative is the inability to achieve the organization’s mission at all, however, the decrease may seem like a reasonable “price” to pay. And over time, if those products and services in fact are very important to the organization’s mission, they may be reinstated.

Recommendations for Successful Implementation
Here are four recommendations to help ensure that decisions about how to operate most effectively within existing constraints have the greatest positive impact:
1. Ensure the above decisions are the result of conscious, strategic choices based on the mission.
2. Once set, communicate the decisions clearly and in a variety of ways to employees, customers, and other stakeholders.
3. In most cases, radical changes will require the adjustment of stakeholders’ mindsets. For example, people who have worked for years under the notion that providing anything other than excellent service are likely to find it difficult to provide anything less. Leaders must address this issue in order to ensure successful change.
4. Recognize that the organization’s mission may have to change to reflect existing circumstances. This change may be short-term or long-term.

© 2010 Pat Lynch. All rights reserved.  Article Source: http://www.bestmanagementarticles.com

About the Author:
Pat Lynch, Ph.D., is President of Business Alignment Strategies, Inc., a consulting firm that helps clients optimize business results by aligning people, programs, and processes with organizational goals. For additional articles please visit our web site at www.BusinessAlignmentStrategies.com. You may contact Pat at Pat@BusinessAlignmentStrategies.com or at (562) 985-0333. Copyright 2010 Pat Lynch. All rights reserved.