Eye on the Workforce

Let's build on the concept of "many small fixes are beneficial" discussed in my last post. There is a model of organizational change management that specifies the areas of critical importance to change.  It is the Beckhard and Harris Formula. One interpretation of the formula is:

D x V x F > R

Where R is the resistance to change coming from the organization. This is what you need to push through to get your change-supporting project to completion. What are the critical factors to be able to generate a force stronger than the resistance?

D = Level of dissatisfaction with the status quo. The more dissatisfaction with the current processes or culture the better for the change effort.

V = Vision or the desirability of proposed change or end state. The more desirable that the organization feels the  new processes or culture will be the better.

F = First steps signifying  the practicality of the change. The less risk or disruption to the organization the better for the success of the change.

These guidelines can be derived from this powerful equation:

• If any of the critical factors on the left are 0, then the total for the critical factors multiplied together will equal zero. Each factor equally important to overcoming organizationa resistance.
• If any one factor is low, the entire ability to overcome organizational resistance is low. You can't ignore either of the factors.
• Increasing each factor is a powerful way to improve your ability to overcome resistance.
• If any one factor is low, concentrating efforts on bolstering that particular factor is the most effective order of business.

In my next post, I'll add more specific recommendations based on this equation.

Let's say you are organizational leadership and want to motivate the workforce to improve work processes even though you are in a culture that is resigned to suffering obstacles and expects to work around them, as described in my previous post. What's a better tactic to start out with?

• Resolve a small number of problems quickly
• Collect data about many reported problems and let the workforce know you are doing so
• Give feedback to workers related to their actions in the undesirable culture
• Communicate your dissatisfaction with the current culture but satisfaction with the workforce

Not knowing what to do first to get momentum is a common problem in culture change. For this reason Harvard Business School professor Anita L. Tucker and Harvard School of Public Health professor Sara J. Singer studied the issue.

Their findings? In a nutshell, actions speak louder than words. But the right actions at the right time speak the loudest.

Less Effective Tactics for Leaders/Managers/PMO

• You might be tempted to try these tactics, but you would not be doing what is best.
• Start an effort to collect data related to the many problems resulting in the current culture.
• Provide feedback to workers on their actions
• Communicate to workers the full extent of the problems that need to be solved

The problems with these tactics are that they tend to de-motivate for one reason or another. They may make managers appear to be simply talking the talk before their attention inevitably shifts to something else. Communications from leaders describing the a large extent of problems tends to cause workforce anxiety. When leaders "give feedback" to the workforce related to an undesirable culture they are just going to look like a mean Dad complaining ("You know what your problem is?").

Better Tactic for Leaders/Managers/PMO

• Resolve a small number of problems.

Even though it looks like a small move, it motivates workers because it is action-oriented, showing that leaders are supporting actual improvements.  It does not deal with the entire scope of the problem before the organization, so the workers  do not become concerned for what is ahead. The actions taken, though, must be "substantive and intense" according to the researchers.
 
So now if you have a culture where defined processes are being subverted by workers who are avoiding problems rather than working to solve them, you know how to get traction. In case you're wondering, this "quick hits" tactic should be very useful other times when you are trying to effect culture change.

Everyone loves a workplace hero. They get results in difficult circumstances. They are an inspiration to everyone as a reflection of the power of hard work skill.

But wait a minute - it's not all good. What if workplace heroes get results by misusing resources, wasting time, and ignoring policies and procedures? That's not so good. That puts your organization at risk of workplace conflicts, worker dissatisfaction, lawsuits, civil penalties and a damaged reputation.

Maybe a closer look is in order before we fall in love with all heroes. Anita Tucker of the Harvard Business School did just that. She found that when there is low management oversight, you can get a hero culture or a workaround culture.

In a workaround culture - workarounds in this case being a way to circumvent an obstacle without removing an obstacle - workers "meet the demands of the moment" using tactics that work to avoid an obstacle. There are compelling reasons to do this from the worker’s point of view. Heroes can develop when the cumulative cost of problems is low and taking credit is less risky.

But the bottom line is that low management oversight leads to workers

• Preferring to put a patches on problems
• Becoming resigned to avoiding problems when completing tasks
• Not reporting problems nor even pushing to solve problems
• Making more errors as compared to working within a well defined process
• Chronically wasting time in workarounds when a fix would save time every cycle the process/procedure is used.
• Gaining prestige as a hero and someone who can "get the job done" and perhaps get more rewards and compensation.

That's not a workforce you would want to have working in your project. For that matter you would not want them in your organization. Yet it’s the low management oversight that causes workers to exhibit this behavior.

Do you see this type of behavior in your organization? Constant workarounds? Heroes who do not follow standard processes?

The next question must be: What tactics will break the workaround habit?

That's in my next post.

These days you may be experiencing difficulty finding the right people for the jobs you need to fill. And you might have already hired workers who are not performing as well as would like. Wouldn't it be useful to have a way to get key information from references that would tell you when a candidate would be good performer in a team setting and a work setting?

You probably already have a set of questions that you ask references for internal or external candidates, but are you asking questions related to characteristics on which references can shed better light?

It matters. Ratings provided by observers (in this case references) on many characteristics are more accurate than self-ratings, so you want to spend quality time with as many observers of a candidate as possible to get ratings on these characteristics in particular.

Now for the characteristics to ask about. Researchers have discovered that Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability are better assessed by observers. You would appreciate these characteristics in any project position wouldn't you? Can you think of times when individual workers did not have one or both of these characteristics?

Finally, here's how to incorporate these findings into your selection process:

1.  Create structured checklists of questions around Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability.

• Base the questions on a job analysis, which also help keep you out of legal trouble.
• Ask yourself or experts, "Where in this job does a worker show conscientiousness?" and "Where in this job does emotional stability become important?"

2.  Ask each candidate reference the same list of questions.

• Try not to ask unstructured, open-ended questions in this evaluation segment. Save that for the candidate interview.

Your friendly neighborhood HR specialists will be able to help complete this checklist and make sure it is valid, but you or your designees should be involved to ensure you get the desired results: a high performer in your project making your life a lot easier.

In my last post I started a list of ideas to tap the expertise of workers who are near retirement. (Why this matters:  The SHRM Workforce Forecast 2011) Here's more, but think of other ideas that will work in your organization. Avoid putting your tactics in a box called "knowledge transfer," though, because you are also after

• Experience transfer
• Perspective transfer
• Demeanor transfer
• Expertise transfer
• Context transfer

Social Network Hours . . . Set up times where workers can have open-access to older specialists via an internal social network. Generation Y workers can really gain from this and may even appreciate the opportunity. This can be a win for two generations of workers.

Consulting . . . Identify areas where a retiree could add value by consulting part time. They may need the money. In fact, the opportunity for consulting may allow those hit hard by the recession to retire on time. This has the double advantage of opening up a position for a high-performer who may be thinking of leaving for better opportunities.

Right now it is likely that there are older workers in your workplace who

• Are frustrated at the lack of good interaction skills in younger workers
• Have ideas for improvement based on years of experience
• Have deep expertise in certain areas that cannot be reproduced
• Have unique broad management experience dealing with human resources and financials

You can use them as a shortcut to success for other generations or squander this opportunity.

So what have you done to avoid the loss of experience as baby boomers retire?