Top 5 Ways to Kill an Employee Engagement Process

derail

We’ve often talked about and published some of the positive results achieved by organizations that have leveraged an engagement process effectively. But what about other organizations – those who had good intentions when they started the employee engagement survey process but then failed to achieve the value anticipated? What do these organizations have in common and why did their efforts come to naught?
Here are the Top 5 ways to kill an employee engagement process:

1. Skip communication with middle management in advance of initiating the engagement surveys.

While executive sponsorship of the survey process is critical, so is the support of middle management. Employees look to their own supervisors for evidence of whether or not company values are being lived, for insight into the purpose and value of new programs, and for follow through. If first and second level supervisors are blindsided by the program or if they are suspicious of the underlying intentions, then they can undermine its effectiveness.

The solution is to communicate with managers well in advance – to convey purpose and expectations, to answer any questions, to prepare them to advocate for the program, and ultimately to engage in action planning and goal tracking on the back end of the process.

2. Delay reporting results to survey participants.

When employees take time to complete engagement surveys, they are typically eager to share their opinions, curious to see if others think or feel the same way they do, and hopeful that work conditions will change as a result of their feedback.  When weeks and sometimes months pass before employees see the feedback results, they often start to think they wasted their time by participating, that they shouldn’t have gotten their hopes up, and that nothing will really change.

The solution is to report out the data as soon as practical, even before the executive team has time to process it all intellectually and come up with a plan of action. Give employees the highlights, the overall report, or even the raw data, and clearly lay out the plan for follow up. Let them know that the executive team is in the process of discussing the findings and what is most critical to address at the scale of the entire organization. Encourage departments to begin to address what seems most important within their own teams or workgroups.

3. Take offense at some of the feedback.

The engagement survey process encourages employees to be candid with both positive and negative feedback, and employees who believe their responses are truly anonymous, will tell you exactly what they think and how they feel.  Executives and senior managers are often surprised by some of the feedback, especially if it calls into question their own effectiveness, compensation (including perks), or temperament.  In the worst cases, managers may launch a quest to find out who said what, and to punish people for what they wrote.  If this happens, employees will instantly learn that it is not safe to give honest feedback.  They will still think and feel the same, and probably worse now that they’ve experienced or witnessed retaliation, they just won’t take the risk to tell you.

The solution is to prepare mentally for the reality that you will see results that will make you uncomfortable and maybe even angry, and that’s okay. Demonstrate leadership.  Absorb the hit and let it go.  Accept and appreciate the feedback for what it is.  Prioritize what you want to change in terms of business processes and perceptions.  And, get into action.

4. Fail to track progress against goals.

If leaders and managers neglect to follow through on commitments they make, they may experience a double whammy in employee perception – first, an employee survey conveys the intention to enact positive change, so employees are apt to notice progress or lack of it; second, leaders who demonstrate they will not or cannot keep their promises to employees lose credibility and trust.

The solution is to do action planning at the team/group level with accountability clearly articulated for each specific action or result – no vague generalities or feel-good wishes allowed to stand unsubstantiated. Then, the process for follow through needs to be put in place as part of the normal course of business – tied to business objectives, KPIs, project plans or other methodology for regularly tracking projects, initiatives and deliverables to completion.

5. Avoid follow through to resurvey on a regular basis.

Employee surveys provide serious data on which to base human resource strategy and objectives.  When an organization fails to measure progress in employee engagement, it loses its ability to track the return on investment for management effectiveness, employee loyalty, and various people programs and initiatives.

The solution is to survey on a regular basis and to learn to use the data with rigor, year after year, to address issues that need attention – whether those are personnel problems or employee programs that are no longer driving or supporting the right business results.

Employee Engagement Survey Sample Download
Related Post: 5 Employee Engagement Survey Benchmarking Cautions
Related Post: The Crisis of Confidence in Employee Engagement
Related Post: 5 Employee Engagement Survey Best Practices

The Importance of 360 Degree Feedback Rating Scales

360 Feedback Survey Sample

Several years ago we began working with a multi-national client organization that engaged us to facilitate some strategic organization design. The purpose of this work was to shift to a culture where cross-functional cooperation could be increased (they weren’t working well with each other, resulting in waste, redundancy, ineffectiveness, etc.). Over the years the company had formed through several mergers and acquisitions, and the standardization of processes had been a difficult, but effective, move.
Group Icon

Part of this initiative involved succession planning—understanding which people should be in which roles, and putting in place the processes and development to make it happen. We suggested that 360-degree feedback could be a very important component of this, and they immediately jumped on the idea.
The company had been using 360-degree feedback for quite some time, and had done a good job at reinforcing this process throughout their organizational efforts (linking with employee surveys, using them for development, coaching, etc.). They had not, however, used it for input into succession planning. Having not been a part of their 360 design and implementation (it was done in-house, designed by an HR consultant several years back), we were also not completely familiar with their 360 process.

The Importance of 360 Degree Feedback Rating Scales

As we began to tackle their succession needs, we reviewed the 360s of potential successors as one source of input into the assessment of performance and behaviors. We found that there was very little differentiation between scores—nearly all fell at the “3” (out of 4) range in terms of 360 scores. While this is not unusual, the lack of variance was far more pronounced than we typically see. In other words, everyone was rated about the same.
360-degree-feedback-survey-4-point-rating-scaleThe problem with the assessment was not the questions, but the rating scale. This organization was a healthcare company that was very comfortable using assessments for patient satisfaction and evaluation. They also used surveys to understand general healthcare concerns of the community, and had found them quite effective. In doing so, they used a 4-point Likert scale, with “1” representing “Never” and “4” representing “Always.” As this scale was effective for their other needs, they used the same, familiar scale for their 360.
Stop. Therein lies the problem. People hesitated to use the “Never” and “Always” ratings when describing behaviors of others on 360-degree feedback.
4-point frequency scales, including never/always, are often used for assessments that don’t require a judgment call to be made. They are common in healthcare and social work, etc. For example, with the question, “How often would you choose a generic equivalent over a name-brand medication if they were equal in all ways except cost?” the always/never extremes work well. Because the rater is aware of the behavior whenever it occurs (he is always in a position to observe it, so his observations will be completely accurate) he can use the full spectrum of scores when responding. He is also making a matter-of-fact statement rather than a judgment call. However, people hesitate to use the “Never” and “Always” ratings when describing the behaviors of others. Because of this, the organization had, in essence, reduced their 360 scale down to a 3-point scale, with nearly all scores hovering in the “3” range.
With a revised scale (we switched to a 7-point performance scale for this client, with “Very Poor” and “Outstanding” being the extremes), the organization found their assessments more clearly differentiated top performers from average performers. They found the use of 360s an important tool in succession planning.
360-Degree Feedback Score Example
 
360-Degree Feedback Survey Download
Related Post: 360 Degree Feedback Gaps in Perception
Related Post: The Truth About 360-Degree Feedback Validity

Interpreting Gaps: What do we do when people see our performance in different ways?

360-degree feedback provides a unique opportunity to assess how others view one person’s performance and behavior. However, it’s interesting how often different rater groups (supervisor, peers, direct reports, others, etc.) vary in their judgment of an individual. Understanding the value behind differences and gaps can provide depth that adds to the valuable insight available from 360-degree feedback.

Continue reading

What's Your Locus of Control?

Autonomy is one of the five MAGIC keys to unlock the power of employee engagement.

Quiz: For each of the following five questions, select the alternative with which you most agree. Use the scoring key at the bottom of the post to determine whether you tend toward an external or internal locus of control.

  1. a. Leaders are born, not made / b. Leaders are made, not born
  2. a. When things go wrong in my life, it’s generally because I have made mistakes. / b. Misfortunes occur in my life regardless of what I do.
  3. a. People often succeed because they are in the right place at the right time. / b. Success is mostly dependent on hard work and ability.
  4. a. Anyone can get good grades in school if he or she works hard enough. / b. Some people are never going to excel in school no matter how hard they try.
  5. a. Popular people seem to have a special, inherent charisma that attracts people to them. / b. People become popular because of how they behave.

Puppet BusinessmanLocus of control refers to the extent to which individuals believe they can control events and circumstances that affect them. People will tend toward an internal locus of control and believe that people control what affects them, or they will lean toward an external locus of control, feeling that people are acted upon by external events and factors.
As we coach individuals on their 360-degree feedback results, we find that their reactions to their feedback often fit into one of the two locus of control perspectives. Some assume full responsibility for the feedback they receive and attempt to drive the change (internal), or they find circumstances outside themselves, and attempt to place themselves as victims of the situation (external). We generally find that people fall somewhere between the two, and demonstrate characteristics of both, depending on the factor being addressed.
Leaders foster an internal locus of control. They focus on the belief that leaders are made, not born (question 1). In order for 360-degree feedback to create better leaders, participants need to take ownership of their development and recognize their personal capacity to improve. Good leaders believe that they are the master of their successes and failures. With that mindset, they are more likely to be dynamic individuals that are constantly improving.
That said, good leaders are also realistic.  Psychologists find that those individuals possessing a completely internal locus of control often experience disappointment in self and others, unmet expectations, and even depression.  The fact of the matter is that we CANNOT control every aspect of what occurs around us.  Therefore, having an understanding of an external locus of control is also important.
Quiz Key: Calculate your number of external and internal responses and discover whether you tend toward an internal or external locus of control.

  1. a. external, b. internal
  2. a. internal, b. external
  3. a. external, b. internal
  4. a. internal, b. external
  5. a. external, b. internal

Related Post: Create Ownership to Promote Change
Related Post: How do You Screen New Hires for Employee Engagement?
Related Content: Talent Assessment Process
Related Content: Focus on Strengths from your 360-Degree Feedback

Giving Critical Feedback through Artful Critiques

As we administer and report on 360-degree feedback surveys, we notice that participants and their managers naturally focus on the negative feedback from 360 results. This focus on the negative often leads to follow-up criticism that attempts to address the negative results. Such criticism, and especially the way it is delivered, can either make or break an employees’ motivation.
What is the best method for giving redirecting feedback? How can we express criticism without triggering frustration or defensive responses? How can we give critical feedback while carefully maintaining employee motivation?
The key to maintaining motivation is to depersonalize the criticism. Focus on the behavior and not the person or judgments of the person’s character. Consider giving an artful critique, coined by Harry Levinson, which focuses on what the person has done or can do in the future to avoid delivering a personal attack on the nature of the individual. Levinson offers the following four steps for artful critiques:

  1. Be specific. Pinpoint an incident that demonstrates the problem that needs changing. Avoid making general statements about an individual’s behaviors.
  2. Offer a solution. The artful critique, like all good feedback, should offer a suggestion for fixing the problem; otherwise, the recipient is left feeling frustrated, angry, and stuck.
  3. Be present. Just like praise, critiques are most effective when given face to face and in private. When given any other way, the communication is too impersonal and is at greater risk of being misunderstood.
  4. Be sensitive. Understand the impact that corrective words can have on the recipient and be sure to focus on being empathetic and sensitive in giving criticism.

Certainly, the way criticism is given goes a long way in determining how satisfied people are with their work and how motivated they will be to improve and progress. Ultimately, giving artful critiques can improve the employee engagement in your organization.
What have you experienced when giving redirecting feedback? How is criticism given in your organization? What are the negative or positive effects of the criticism?
Related Post: 5 Steps for Giving Feedback
Related Post: Giving as Good as I Got: What to do after you receive your 360 feedback
Related Post: 5 Tips for Giving Effective 360-Degree Feedback
Related Post: Giving the Gift of Feedback
Related Post: Does Someone Have to Go? How Not to Do 360 Feedback
Related Content: 360 Degree Feedback