Are your employees engaged?

The Sunday Times “Best Companies to Work For survey”, which has now canvassed over a million workers since 2000, has identified eight factors that foster workplace engagement.

The factor with the strongest correlation is Leadership: employees must have faith and trust in their senior management team to be engaged.

To do that leaders must gain their trust, live the values, and inspire the team.

Their 2009 survey revealed, in answer to the statement “I have great confidence in the leadership skills of the SMT”, there was a 54% difference between engaged and disengaged employees. In answer to the statement; “senior management truly live the values of this organisation”, there was a 51% difference.

In the top 10% of companies there was a massive 94% confidence rating that the leader ran the company on moral principles.  Would that figure be so high today in the depths of a recession?

Giving something Back (GSB) is one way of engaging employees. Organisations with a good track record of this get higher scores from staff for leadership, pride in their company, and personal well-being.

There does seem to be a rash of books and articles on the new leadership approach needed since the recession. And values and principles are high up among the key factors which is maybe why organisations turn to women when they are in a crisis as they appear to be more trusted as CEOs even though, or maybe because, they  seem more willing to criticise their organisations.

Updated since first published 02/04/2010

Informational Warfare – protect your reputation

Anyone in doubt about the impact of social media will have had to rethink their ideas after the Tunisian and Egyptian popular uprisings.

But is the tweet really mightier than the sword? Iran soon learned to curtail its impact and China and Libya, by shutting down mobile and internet services and using their internal security forces, prevented any sizeable demonstrations,

In the business world the BP Deepwater catastrophe was an undoubted PR disaster. To add to the company’s woes a tweeter began publishing from a bogus PR division within BP. As the world watched the marine disaster unfold the fake PR person published tweets about the canteen menu and other mundane issues. The satirical account of life within BP was followed by more people than followed the official BP twitter account.

The power of one man (in this case an aspiring comedian) and a laptop against a giant global corporation shows how the rules have changed. Critics and activists no longer need to have an institution behind them, This is what the military call asymmetric warfare – an uneven matching of resources which can nevertheless result in stalemate or worse – think the USA in Vietnam, think the soviets in Afghanistan.

And to make matters worse for businesses the critics don’t necessarily have to tell the truth, are probably emotionally driven because they are angry or desperate, and may also be irrational.

An article in the December 2010 issue of HBR suggests that businesses need to look at what the military are doing. After the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war the US Army War College Centre for Strategic Leadership and Canada’s SecDev Group carried out a review into what they called “informational warfare”. They found that although Hezbollah was mismatched in conventional military terms it had used social media to win “hearts and minds” (ironically a key part of psyops warfare) around the world and discredited the Israeli position.

SecDev scholars wrote a report called “Bullets and Blogs” in which they set out several principles which could be used to counter attack and which also apply to protecting corporate reputations. These were:

Avoid a disproportionate show of force: don’t come across as a bully. Companies are generally seen as Goliaths compared to individuals. It’s not a good idea to respond in an aggressive manner. A more considered, less emotional, response which shows you re listening and doing something about the problem pays dividends.

Train people to respond quickly: Companies can be slow to respond especially of they need to reach a consensus or call a board meeting to agree the content of a tweet. Having a media monitoring system and social media channels in place enables companies to respond quickly through key personnel.

Avoid bureaucracy and empower teams to respond: following on from the last point, the public would rather hear it from front-line staff than the board members. So letting staff blog about their experiences is a more trusted method. I’ve seen NHS web-sites with interviews with nurses and other clinical staff talking about their work. These testimonials can work. Even the US Army allows soldiers to post blogs (as long as they are not risking security) on ArmyStrongStories.com. General Freakly, in a podcast, basically said that if you trust soldiers to make daily life or death decisions you can trust them with social media.

Go rogue – apply the same tactics: New media are often seen as a threat rather than an asset. Used ethically however they can help neutralise criticism. Domino’s Pizza was badly affected by the YouTube video of a staff member doing unsavoury things with the food. Profits were hit and that particular store was closed. The company President apologised using YouTube reasoning that that’s where the audience was. That in itself created news which by chance also diverted attention away from the problem.

Use multipliers to echo your message: In the military force multipliers are things which amplify your strength. In media having 3rd party endorsements can add to your own efforts. Critics of cruise ships visiting Haiti after the earthquake were soon neutralised when independent organisations supported the cruise line which had invested heavily in the country already, were delivering relief supplies, and who had been asked by the government to continue visiting to help the local economy to recover.

Establish your credentials in advance: Of course all these things are made easier if you already have established yourself as an ethical, diverse, fair, organisation so that when you are attacked you can point to past successes or decisions.

With new media you now have less control over your corporate message so reputation management is even more important.

Queen Bees – victims or oppressors?

Queen Bees (QBs) are women in senior positions who boast about their own masculine attributes whilst putting down their female subordinates.

Some people believe that QBs cause as many problems as sexist men and are just as likely to cause gender inequality in the workplace.

A Dutch team has challenged that assertion and thinks that sexist workplaces are a breeding ground for QBs, that they are a consequence not a cause of sexism at work.

We can probably all think about women who came across as tough as nails – I saw a few around the NHS in my time there –  and those of you with long enough memories may be thinking of Margaret Thatcher or Golda Meir – said to be “the toughest man” in the Israeli cabinet at the time.

Bella Derks and her team interviewed 94 senior women in a rage of organisations in the Netherlands and found that those who showed the hallmarks of being QBs all recalled suffering sexism and prejudice in their careers and also identified less with other women.

Derks thinks that women in those situations have two options: either strengthen their ties with other women or distance themselves from their femininity.  She is basically saying that it is the sexist culture which forces some women to make a choice and become QBs.

The research methodology means that you can’t be sure whether a sexist culture forces women to renounce their femininity and become QBs or whether being a QB makes it more likely that you will recall being the subject of sexism. The researchers think the latter unlikely and believe that it is more likely that QBs would play down the presence of gender discrimination.

But why would they? Wouldn’t they be proud to have overcome discrimination? And surely not all of them would become QBs anyway. And what about the ones who took the other option to get closer to other women? Isn’t it more likely that there is a predisposition to behave in this way, an aspect of their personality?

If Derks and her colleagues are right however it suggests that appointing token women into sexist cultures will backfire as they are more likely to become QBs thereby making it worse for their female subordinates. (Maybe that’s why most people prefer working for men).

The researchers say for women to become inspiring role models who have positive attitudes about the potential of female subordinates companies would have to ensure that; “women can achieve career success without having to forgo their gender identification”

In other words behave like women and don’t try to outdo the men by being more masculine. There is evidence that when women play to their strengths they are really trusted and respected in organisations

Updated 25 July 2011: Eleanor Mills in the Sunday Times has picked up on a piece Derk published last week in Psychological Science in which she explains that QBs are bitchy because they do it to survive.

Derk says; “This isn’t just about women it’s a classic group behaviour. If you are  a member of a group which is undervalued in the wider culture you can pursue your own ambitions by distancing yourself from that group”. In the case of QBs they do it by identifying with the dominant men and by running down other women.

Or as Derk puts it; “QBs advance their careers through emphasising their masculine characteristics, expressing gender-stereotypical views of other women and denying g the existence of gender bias” and “QB behaviour leads successful women to distance themselves from other women reducing the likelihood that they will improve opportunities for other women or be seen as role models.”

The rest of Mills piece is about the lack of women at the top ie only 13.9% in FTSE100 although she concedes that women are well represented at what she calls the “marzipan layer” just below. And the building up of a critical mass as more women get on boards she thinks will do away with QB behaviour.

I still think that there are elements of QB behaviour which reflect personality traits and predispositions. Under pressure dark side behaviours will emerge and women are more prone to suffering ill-health when stressed.

Lies, damned lies

Goebbels famously said in 1941:” The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness.

The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous”. And so the BIG LIE idea, 16 years after Hitler had first used the term in Mein Kampf, passed into popular usage.

I thought of this when I read about Stephen Wilce. He was, until exposed by TV journalists, New Zealand’s Chief Defence Scientist and had a high security clearance and access to highly sensitive information.

According to his CV he had been in both MI5 and MI6, played international rugby for Wales, swam for England in the Commonwealth games, competed in the bobsleigh in the Winter Olympics, been a member of the New Zealand yacht squadron, fought alongside Prince Andrew in the Falklands and Gulf wars, been decorated for bravery, and had an honorary PhD from Cambridge university.

He did have an MBA, had been in the Royal Navy, had competed in bobsleigh events, and had worked as a bar manager at the Americas Cup but everything else was pure fantasy. It sounds funny but how embarrassing after all the security vettings and selection processes.

So while Wilce was clearly a fantasist, research tells us that people in positions of power are better liars.

Dana Carney, at Columbia University Graduate School of Business carried out research to see if it made a difference if you had more power. The research subjects were divided into bosses, with bigger offices and more power eg they could assign salaries, and employees. Half of each group were then asked, via computer instructions, to steal a hundred-dollar note then lie about it later when interviewed.

The subjects were then measured on 5 variables associated with lying:

1. accelerated speech – liars utter more syllables at a higher pitch and repeat words and sentences more
2. shoulder shrugs – liars shrug more when trying to suppress the lie
3. cortisol – liars’ saliva contains a higher concentration of the stress hormone
4. eyes – liars’ pupils dilate
5. mouth – liars press their lips together and involuntarily smirk when they think they’ve got away with it

Only the low-power liars could be seen to be lying. High-power liars were indistinguishable from non-liars. A sense of power seems to buffer people from the stress of lying and increases their ability to deceive others. As most people can’t detect liars better than chance unless specially trained it suggests most people in a position of power can get away with it. Perhaps they are in positions of power because they are good liars. (See “Leadership – the dark side“)

Occasionally of  course powerful people get caught out lying. MPs are a case in point and many lost their seats following the expenses scandal exposed by the press. More significantly perhaps, former Labour Minister Phil Woollas has been found guilty of contravening an old statute that prohibits “false statements” against a rival’s “character or conduct”. He accused his Lib Dem opponent of cosying up to Islamic militants (this was particularly sensitive in a town that had been the centre of race riots previously). His appeal against the decision – which means the election will be re-run – continues.

Another aspect of the research was about power posture compared with low power, non-assertive postures. Power postures take up more space, like a peacock spreading its feathers, whilst subordinates want to take up less space.

The researchers found that those people asked to adopt power postures, even though they didn’t know why, had higher levels of testosterone and lower levels of cortisol. In other words they felt more powerful and less stressed out.

Effective teamwork pays off for “los 33″

Not since the safe splashdown of Apollo 13 in 1970 has the world been so focussed on the lives of men in desperate straits as the events at the San Jose mine unfolded.

Camp Hope, set up in the Atacama desert 50km from the nearest town, lived up to its name as the rescue smoothly proceeded and families were re-united, emotions ran high, and the country celebrated and sensed it had been reborn.

Surely there will be books, films, docu-dramas and probably more personal drama as the miners attempt to return to some semblance of normality. Above all this proved what effective teamwork could achieve.

Hackman’s model of effective teams stands up well in this scenario. There was a team below the surface and there were teams of rescuers, all united in a single purpose – to rescue 33 miners from 2,000′ below the surface who had been there for 69 days in 90 degrees temperature and 90% humidity. Think Florida in the Summer but without the sunshine and AC.

Hackman’s 3 core conditions are:

1. The team must be a real team, not just a group of people doing their own thing – are they dependent on each other, do they know who is in the team and who isn’t, do they know how much authority they had, was it a stable team?
2. The team must have a compelling direction in its work. Did they have a vision which energised and engaged them?
3. It has an enabling structure which facilitates rather than impedes. Did they see their work as meaningful, did they feel personally responsible for work outcomes, did they receive trustworthy feedback on what they were doing?

In this model leadership is about creating and maintaining the core conditions using whatever skills and expertise you have and regardless of whether or not you have a formal leadership position. We know that there was a shift supervisor who was respected by the men and accepted as their leader. From reports we have learned how he organised people into teams, assigned specific roles and structured their day with prayer sessions, exercise, and rest periods. And let’s not forget that for the first 17 days they were on their  own and left to their own resources not knowing how much people on the surface knew.

Hackman also identifies two supporting conditions:

1. The team must operate within a supportive organisational context
2. It has available ample and expert coaching in teamwork

Once contact was made with the surface the rescue teams sprang into action. Communications were established (the telecomms expert simply said he was asked to make contact with the 33 and that’s what he did). Engineers, medical staff, psychologists, experts from NASA, special forces, survival experts, and rescuers worked together – encouraged by the President (who apparently was advised not to become so personally involved as it was considered a political gamble).

The miners were advised on how to cope, inventors responded by designing items small enough to fit in the “doves” they used to transport items down to the men. Beds and boots were all made to be re-assembled down below. The Chilean Navy designed and built the Phoenix escape pod. I think the miners, and just as importantly for morale their families, knew that they did have support and expert advice.

Hackman argues that effective teams shape and exceed expectations, it become more capable as time goes on, and that individuals acquire new skills and knowledge and new perspectives. And there is a sense of fulfilment and the knowledge that the team really achieved something together, something to look back on with pride.

Something like this can be life-changing and it is possible that some of the miners may suffer from PTSD or some will want to do something different with their lives. For some they may never again enjoy the comradeship they felt underground. But for almost 70 days, culminating in that extraordinarily successful rescue, we were reminded how great we can be when we work together for a common purpose.

Apparently the President was advised not to become so personally involved as it was considered a political gamble and he wasn’t that popular at the beginning. For whatever reason he did become involved and showed a very human face with his wife and cabinet colleagues at his side.

Being visionary is not enough

As President Obama is finding out – selling a vision and being good at speech making is one thing; getting people to deliver and keep on supporting you is an entirely different matter.

His ratings are low in his second year in post – his popularity has crossed the watershed – more people dislike him than like him now. And this despite delivering on the health care package and pulling troops out of Iraq as he promised. It seems to be all about the economy now.

I always thought Obama had a rather enigmatic style of leadership and got funny looks when I said I wasn’t really convinced about him. Too much coaching in using tricks of rhetoric I thought. And how had he progressed through the murky world of Chicago politics and yet come out so clean? Perhaps he was something special after all.

According to research by the HAY Group; “ the visionary leader inspires and is able to explain how and why people’s efforts contribute to the ‘dream’. Through empathy and clarity they are able to move people towards shared dreams“.

This only works however when the leader is seen as an expert and as competent, develops people and provides balanced feedback  - otherwise his words will be seen as just words with no reasoning or explanation to back them up.

So has Obama lost credibility over the BP spillage, the planned mosque near ground zero, or criticisms from military commanders?. What happened to the concept of “Soft Power” which was the subject of many articles after his election?

He clearly has self-control but has been accused of lacking passion so just how self-aware is he really? They say things are bad when wives are brought into the spotlight. Think Sarah Brown supporting Gordon (“zero emotional intelligence”) Brown. And apparently Michelle Obama is  taking off her gardening gloves to join her husband’s fight to regain popularity.

Female CEOs still trusted more than males

Almost half of the 5,000 employees polled for the Index of Leadership Trust thought that their CEOs had handled the impact of recession well.

And, as in last year’s survey, female CEOs are still trusted more than their male counterparts.

The second annual survey ( a 50:50 mix of managers and non-managers) carried out by the Management Today magazine and the Institute of Leadership & Management (ILM) had better news than last year with leaders being rated more highly for creating more open and understanding cultures. They seemed to be making an attempt to be more visible.

And there was an 8% increase in that trust for female CEOs amongst male employees and an even higher 11% for those men who weren’t managers. (See my earlier post on last year’s survey at: “Do you trust your boss?“). It seems women are rated higher, not just on doing their job well, but in being principled and honest, and particularly in understanding the problems facing employees.

Penny de Valk, CEO of the ILM, is keen to play down the gender stereotype. She says it’s not because women are more empathetic than men but because; “we know that women are not likely to put themselves forward for new roles unless they feel 95% capable, whereas men will happily do so at 65%, so what happens is that when women are promoted, they are very familiar with the tasks their people are doing”.

Well women do suffer more from imposter syndrome than men so there is probably something in that but women are probably are more empathic than men and many have to work hard at achieving a reasonable work-life balance to avoid being stressed out and suffering ill-health as a result.

So is this a backlash against alpha male leaders? These findings also conflict with another recent survey I posted a blog about which showed that all employees prefer male bosses: “Most people prefer male bosses“.

There are only 5 female CEOs in FTSE 100 companies: Alison Cooper at Imperial Tobacco, Dame Marjorie Scardino at Pearson, Angela Ahrendts at Burberry, Cynthia Carroll at Anglo American, and Katherine Garrett-Cox at Alliance Trust.

Regardless of gender the largest negative factor in determining trust in CEOs is whether or not there has been cost-cutting. The greater the severity of cut-backs the lower the trust in line managers and particularly in CEOs.The  CEO trust score in organisations that haven’t suffered is 68 but in organisations that have suffered cuts it drops to 51 – so massive consequences as de Valk concedes.

And it’s even grimmer news for the public sector. They already have the lowest trust in their CEOs of any sector - and I wonder if that is linked in any way to the massive salaries and pension pots they have accrued over the last decade?. With the swingeing cutbacks planned by the government it can only get worse.

PR = Protecting Reputations

In an inter-connected world made possible by digital surveillance and social networking privacy is becoming a thing of the past.

And for companies who want to protect their reputations and brand image this can create problems which can affect their share price and market standing.

It’s not just so-called A-list personalities who risk being observed letting their hair down (and in some cases much more). A chance remark, or a slip of the tongue in an unguarded moment, can spell disaster. Think of Gerald Ratner’s comment about his jewellery “being crap” – that marked the end of his role, the company made big losses and had to change its name. Think of BP’s CEO Tony Hayward wishing he had his life back!

However help is at hand. According to a recent article in the Observer (1 August 2010): “Drunk again? Been behaving badly? Your image may need an online detox“, new companies are responding to the challenge. They offer to manage the “footprint” you create online. “Reputation Managers” claim they can clean up and shape your online history by burying the damaging stuff and promoting the good. The article says Kate Moss is rumoured to be using online brand reputation management to make sure Google searchers come to positive stories first. By contrast Mel Gibson has negative stories about his abusive rants in his top 5 results. Paris Hilton and Linsey Lohan are given as examples of people who might benefit from such a service by pushing their recent negative news items down the search results.

In America a company called Reputation Defender will help promote the positive and hide the negative and all for $15 a month. They will also alert you to any new references and for $30 you can subscribe to a service that will attempt to destroy hostile internet content. Other companies with names such as Online Reputation Manager, and Reputation Professor, offer similar services and one of the CEOs said they see themselves in an arms race against intrusive web developments.

The problem is people don’t realise how much information there is on them already on the internet all of which can be digitally stored forever. Some of this is because they use social networking sites or like Lohan Twitter their life away. This information is also used by marketers who learn your profile (just as loyalty cards do. Those coupons aren’t just sent at random or the same ones to everybody) and recruiters to check your background. So the less you put out there on the grid the less people can find out about you.

And in case you think these reputation managers are just internet savvy entrepreneurs think again. PR has moved with the times. The strap-line on that well-known friend of the stars Max Clifford ‘s website says; “… protecting and promoting a wide variety of clients…” (it’s interesting that he puts protection before promotion but apparently that is now 90% of his business) and it  goes on to describe him as “Often poacher and gamekeeper at the same time, he has helped save many a famous career from media damage and destruction”. He has even described himself as providing the 4th emergency service.

I wondered if Naomi Campbell might be using such a service in the light of her recent appearance at the Hague so I checked her out on Google yesterday. As 75% of all clicks are on the first three links I looked at those. The first result is a Guardian story which says “agent told a pack of lies” and which covers the trial story including the allegations about Campbell, so not that positive despite the headline.. The second result from The Telegraph; “former agency threw blood diamond party” was no longer available, which was strange – or maybe not. The 3rd result from Hello: “(she) puts trial behind her as she parties in Sardinia” is the usual sycophantic stuff you expect I suppose. So mixed results there – assuming she might be using such a service. But as I was searching the Google site it was updating from Twitter accounts and these seemed more positive eg “Are we being to hard on Naomi” so it makes you wonder?

I checked back again today. The first result was a Mail online piece asking is she had finally met her match and comparing her “vile and abusive temper” with Charles Taylor’s habit of ripping out victims’ hearts and eating them. I’d say that was a negative story. Then it switched to a Reuters report that said she “had nothing to gain”, a more neutral story but that wasn’t up for long before the Mail story popped back into top place. The second result was another Mail online story about an Israeli model in a pink bikini – with lots of pictures –  on holiday with Campbell. So a glamour story diverting attention away from the trial.

Then the 3rd result from PR Week confirmed what we probably all suspected. A PR company The Outside Organisation described their strategy for managing the media campaign including getting photos and video banned (out of respect for the court of course) and providing press packs and making themselves available for Q&A sessions after her appearance. They felt they got a broadly neutral coverage which they thought was a win in PR. PR Week wasn’t so sure and felt her reputation was still in the balance. They also printed the press release in full which was quite interesting if not the most grammatical of statements eg “Myself and Alan…”. And you’d have thought they might have got their “brilliant” lawyer to coach Campbell on her attitude in court and actually got her there on time.

But as the top North West PR and social media agency Smoking Gun PR points out: even David Cameron isn’t averse to putting his foot in it on occasions and might benefit from some reputation if not crisis management!

Updated 1 November 2010: Camelot Castle Hotel has become a battle of reviews on TripAdviser (195 rate it excellent and 146 as terrible). The owner, John Mappin (of Mappin and Webb jewellery) has called in an online reputation management company after scores of terrible reviews have appeared on TripAdviser. Mappin, a long-time scientologist who claims John Travolta and Tom Cruise amongst his friends, claims that business rivals and opponents of Scientology are behind them.

TripAdviser has responded by warning people that many hotels are hiring “reputation laundering” firms to write positive reviews and improve their on-line profile. It has even posted alerts in large red letters against some hotel entries where it suspects reviews may have been provided by someone with an interest in the property.

Updated 3 May 2011: In the midst of the suffering in Libya I wonder if some PR companies are having second thoughts about the work they have done for Colonel Gaddafi and his regime. Brown Lloyd James (BLJ) promoted Gaddafi as a“fascinating contemporary world figure” and his son Saif as a “human rights champion”.

BLJ had offices in London, New York, and Tripoli and promoted the Gaddafi family through videos including his address to the LSE. US firms were involved as well: the Livingston Group and Monitor. Monitor has publicly acknowledge it might have got it wrong!

Updated 16 May 2011: On the back of the story about the Facebook slur campaign against Google The Times pointed out that it’s not the first time Burston-Marsteller had been involved in dodgy reputation management exercises. It was employed by the Nigerian government to discredit reports of genocide during the Biafran war, and by Argentina when it was accused of 30,000 disappearances. However when it advised  Johnson and Johnson when some of its painkillers were laced with cyanide – it was seen as an outstanding example of how to do crisis management.

Updated 1 June 2011: According to the Times today celebrities and blue chip companies alike are hiring “reputation management” companies – the new social media savvy PR companies – to hide their secrets and boost their positive ratings on Google.

By setting up fake profiles on social networking sites and promoting positive stories they create extra web links and aim to drive up the ratings on Google so that bad news stories get pushed off the important 1st page of search results.

Companies such as Warlock Media, Kwikchex, and ReputationManagement.me, charge up to £10,000 a week for this service.

Updated 3 June 2011: The Times seems to be on a bit of a crusade with this topic adding hotels and authors to those who are using reputation managers. Apparently you can buy “followers” for social networking sites for as little as 24p and agencies are employing content writers to submit reviews and comments to sites like TripAdvisor, Amazon, and Mumsnet.

Amazon and TripAdvisor both state it’s against their rules to review if you have a financial interest and claim they have tools in place to spot this kind of fraud. TripAdvisor flags businesses that have been caught out doing this with a red badge to warn potential customers.

Rituals engage staff

It’s no surprise that employee engagement is a hot topic right now in the wake of cutbacks, pay freezes, and redundancies (and the survivor guilt and loss of productivity that goes with that).

According to a Towers Perrin worldwide survey (2007), only 21% of employees feeling fully engaged, compared to almost twice as many feeling disengaged.

Discretionary effort is still the holy grail for many companies but looking at some of the approaches being adopted to engage staff they seem to be as focussed on well-being as on motivation. Not much mention of Stress, Quality of Working Life or Work-Life Balance any more but what’s in a name anyway.

Sony’s Energy Project, reported in the June 2010 Harvard Business Review: “The Productivity Paradox. How Sony pictures get more by demanding less” started by looking at employee burnout and employee performance 10 years ago. As in many organisations they found that once employees completed training sessions and went back into the work place they faced resistance from the organisation – the re-entry crisis.

They eventually realised that for organisational change to endure the top leaders had to be involved and fundamental shifts made in the way they managed people. First by stopping assuming people can operate like computers – continuously, at high speeds, and multi-tasking (See my earlier post: “Multi-tasking addiction makes you stupider than smoking pot“) and by  recognising that employees work better when periods of intense activity are interspersed with opportunities for renewal.

Secondly by systematically meeting the employees’ 4 core needs so that they are refreshed and inspired to go to work each day. The 4 needs are: physical health (nutrition, sleep, exercise, and day-time renewal); emotional well-being (through being appreciated and valued); mental clarity (the ability to focus intensely, think creatively, and prioritise); and spiritual significance (the feeling of serving a mission that goes beyond just making a profit).

Crucially Sony’s co-chairs agreed to look at their own leadership behaviours and the way they did things, and how that impacted upon staff. Two critical changes were that the introvert chair discovered people didn’t realise what he was feeling so he started calling and writing personal notes of appreciation to people, and that the other chair was conflict-averse which left uncertainty amongst her staff. Which is where rituals come into it.

Rituals are practices you carry out at certain times to do highly specific activities. In this way they eventually become automatic and don’t require conscious will or discipline.  So to stop avoiding conflict th chair learned to ask herself; “what’s the right thing to do here for the company?”. Other rituals included taking a walk when people felt frustrated, self-talk, learning to pause and respond rather than react.

To help be more focussed one executive turned off e-mails at certain times, one committed to ignoring e-mails when on the phone, another spent 5 minutes every evening reflecting on his top 3 tasks for the following day and then set aside an uninterrupted 60-90 minutes the following day to deal with them.

They also introduced rituals to increase collaboration and open-ness but reduce groupthink. They also agreed to ban e-mails during meetings and when that meant people working on them in the evenings they banned that too outside an 0800-2000 time frame. Any urgent stuff had to be handled by a personal call instead.

Reading the case study some of these ideas seem obvious – but that’s always the case with hindsight. But there is nothing really new here. They are  mixture of behavioural interventions, including assertiveness and active listening, time management, and common courtesy.

Some of the highlighted Dos and Don’ts are:

• Do take a lunch break and encourage others to do the same
• Do communicate your values by writing notes of appreciation
• Do set aside an informal space to promote creative thinking and brainstorming
• Do share your passion

• Don’t avoid conflict. Enter difficult conversations with a spirit of openness and curiosity
• Don’t try to multi-task. Give people your full attention and active listening
• Don’t be self-absorbed. It’s not all about you. Serve the needs of people you lead.

Now a book by Tom Shwartz et al: “The way we’re working isn’t working: the four forgotten needs that energise great performance”, sets these out in more detail using Maslow’s hierarchy of needs as a structure for the book. Advice to sleep more, eat more healthily, only work in 90 minute bursts, and take regular exercise is complemented by case study examples from Sony, Ernst & Young, and Barclays Wealth.

Updated 2 July 2010.

Danger – Jealousy at work

Jealousy and envy are closely related but jealousy is usually when you wish you had something someone else has got eg a pay rise,or a plum project, and envy is when you haven’t got it and when you wish they hadn’t either.

Envy is about feeling inferior, being resentful, and wishing ill-will to others. It also tends to be more about being competitive.

Jealousy can also be aspirational or inspirational in encouraging you to better yourself so that you can also achieve what the other person has.

Research in USA by Professor Robert Vecchio suggests that 3 out of 4 people have witnessed jealousy at work and up to 50% of people have become involved in it in some way.

People who are more envious of others at work are more likely to be the ones who use “social loafing” (not pulling their weight) to even up the score. They are also more likely to be looking for other jobs.

People with a strong work ethic who are sensitive to work issues are more likely to get emotional about them as much as people with low self-esteem who think work is all about being competitive.

Generally woman are more likely to be jealous about social relationships; men to envy others in a competitive way.

Lack of consideration by supervisors can lead to jealousy and it is more likely to happen in a small office. People who work in large offices tend to assume that unequal treatment is because of bureaucratic inefficiency.

If you are the object of jealousy or envy:

• Focus on the good things in your job (count your blessings) to bolster your self-esteem
• Be humble – don’t flaunt your success
• Don’t get involved in the drama
• Help others to achieve and be as successful as you

There are also things organisations can do:

• Create more of a team culture
• Encourage cooperation rather than competition through incentives
• Encourage a more participative style of leadership – encouraging input
• Recruit emotionally mature people
• Use high achievers as role models, mentors or coaches

And the office romance? Jealousy about sex or romance is a 3-way relationship; the focus of your attention plus the rival, which can produce feelings of loss, distrust or betrayal. But that’s a different posting.