Tag: Leadership Development

  • 5 Habits Of Effective Introverted Leaders

    5 Habits Of Effective Introverted Leaders

    [Photo: Flickr user John Alexis Guerra Gómez]

    View publication at Fast Company

    Introverts can be quiet changemakers. Here’s how they can adopt their leadership style in a world that won’t shut up.
    By Trina Isakson 4 minute Read

    Leadership is often associated with words like “charisma,” “power,” “outgoing,” and “confident.” As a result, introverted and quiet changemakers may have difficulties envisioning what their leadership looks like.

    But core aspects of leadership, such as those described by transformational leadership researchers James MacGregor Burns, Bernard M. Bass, James Kouzes, and Barry Posner, and by Good to Great author Jim Collins, reflect ideas that are in total alignment with quiet changemakers, and you don’t need to be in a position of authority or have a formal leadership role to practice these leadership characteristics.

    Here are a few practices that introverts–whom I refer to as “quiet changemakers”–can adopt to strengthen their leadership:

    1. Good leaders treat those around them as individuals.

    They learn the interests and preferences of their colleagues. They engage in two-way communication. Quiet changemakers can excel through our preference for one-on-one or small-group communication. Through these individual interactions, we learn about our colleagues more deeply in a way that positively impacts our relationships.

    Questions that lead to better leadership practice:

    • Do I know much about my colleagues outside of work?
    • What do my colleagues and I have in common? Difference?
    • Which parts of their jobs do my colleagues love/hate?
    • What skills do my colleagues have that they don’t have a chance to share in their jobs?
    • How do my colleagues work best?

    2. Good leaders provide opportunities for others to demonstrate their thinking and knowledge.

    They provide space for intellectual discussion. They ask others to provide advice. They provide opportunities for people to show off their knowledge. Quiet changemakers can do well because of their enjoyment of conversation with just a few people on topics of shared interest. They can be good listeners and allow other people to spend more time talking. They can share work or ask for advice in ways that allow other people to shine in their areas of expertise.

    Questions that lead to better leadership practice:

    • Who knows more than me in an area I’d like to improve in? What advice can I ask of them?
    • What projects am I working on that others may be interested in getting involved with?
    • Who would be interested in joining me about a discussion on ________?
    • Are there opportunities for my colleagues to lead mini-professional development lunches so that we can learn from each other?

    3. Good leaders are good role models.

    They follow through on commitments. They have strong characters and are consistent in their beliefs. They offer to help for the good of the team. Quiet changemakers can practice this aspect of leadership by knowing their values and contributing to a positive overall environment.

    Questions that lead to better leadership practice:

    • Does my current workload allow me to follow through on all commitments?
    • Do my values align with those of the organization?
    • Are my interactions with others generally positive, or do I focus on the negative or gossip too much?
    • Do I help others and provide others the opportunity to help me when times are tough?

    4. Good leaders focus their energy on the big picture.

    They ensure that work aligns with the mission and values of the team. They help keep people focused on the end goal. Quiet changemakers naturally take time to reflect on their purpose and that of the organization.

    Questions that lead to better leadership practice:

    • Do I understand how my work and that of my colleagues connects the purpose of the organization and can I communicate that to others?
    • Am I able to communicate how our work positively impacts society?
    • What aspect of my organization’s work really invigorates me?
    • Who in my network would also enjoy talking about the bigger picture of our organization’s work and/or the type of work I contribute to the movement?

    5. Good leaders are both strong-willed and humble.

    They are driven to achieve a purpose, but aren’t interested in taking all the credit or blaming others for failure. They are strong yet reflective. Quiet changemakers are naturally interested in reflection, enjoying time alone thinking. And as introverts often overthink past interactions, we may be at risk for overly blaming ourselves when things don’t work out, so we also need to give ourselves a break once in a while.

    Questions that lead to better leadership practice:

    • Do I know what I want to achieve in my role?
    • Who else can I credit for my successes?
    • What have I learned from past failures and missteps, and how can I share that learning with others?
    • Am I spending time on my purpose? Or are my personal issues getting in the way of success?

    Leadership as a concept or something to aspire to can be alienating to many. If you don’t have a job that involves supervising others or have natural skill as a charismatic public speaker, it can be hard to see yourself as a leader. But by practicing many of the qualities of leadership that align with being a quiet changemaker, leadership is accessible for the introverts among our movements, too.

  • The Path To Better Decision Making

    The Path To Better Decision Making

  • Women on Corporate Boards: Are You Preparing Your Clients to Take on This Role?

    Women on Corporate Boards: Are You Preparing Your Clients to Take on This Role?

  • A Case For MCEC: Master-Level Corporate Executive Coaching Certification

    A Case For MCEC: Master-Level Corporate Executive Coaching Certification

    WRITTEN BY ACEC (Association of Corporate Executive Coaches) Member:
    Dr. Terry H. Hildebrandt, MCC, MCEC

  • The propensity to pursue executive coaching: …

    The propensity to pursue executive coaching: …

    The propensity to pursue executive coaching: variables of self-efficacy and transformational leadership  CEOWORLD Magazine

    www.ceoworld.biz

    Two dominate variables, which has been linked to successful, sustainable, and innovative businesses is transformational leadership and leadership self-efficacy.  However, nearly 60% of companies face leadership talent shortages (Crainer, 2011).  Leadership coaching is a strategy to address the deficit of effective leaders (Gregory, Beck, & Carr, 2011; Hannafey & Vitulano, 2013), and leaders who seek coaching indicate improved self-efficacy and  transformational leadership (Abrell, Rowold, Weibler, & Moenninghoff, 2011; Enescu & Popescue, 2012; Moen & Allgood, 2009; Mukherjee, 2012; Shanker, Bhanugopan, & Fish, 2012).  According to the research literature and theorists, leadership coaching provides a new path for learning and self-awareness to an individual’s growth and development (Kay, 2013; Moen & Federici, 2012).

    Unfortunately, a paucity of information exists about leaders who take responsibility for their own development, and McCall (2010) posited no substitutes exist for teaching evolving leaders how to take charge of their own advancement.  Therefore, the objective of this research study was to (a) enrich the substantive theory building and empirical research on self-efficacy and transformational leadership by (b) assessing the leaders’ self-efficacy and transformational leadership, and(c) to ascertain if a relationship exists between these variables and the propensity to pursue executive coaching.

    Theoretical Framework

    Coaching continues to grow faster than research and Gregory et al. recommended an integration of theory and practical application of organizing frameworks.  Control Theory (CT) posited humans take an active role or responsibility toward one’s behavior, where CT attempts to control the state of some variable, often the pursuit of accomplishing a task by controlling their behavior (Gregory et al., 2011).
    Literature Review

    Executive Coaching

    In a comprehensive literature review by Kampa-Kokesch and Anderson (2001), the history of executive coaching is noted as barely traceable and a hard date for the commencement of executive coaching does not appear to exist.  The word coach emerged in the 1500s into the English language to describe a particular horse drawn carriage.  The origin of the verbto coach refers to a highly regarded person getting from where he or she was to where they wanted to go (Witherspoon & White, 1996).  Over the centuries, the term moved through several avenues from sports coaching to academic coaching and to the evolution of executive coaching (Stern, 2004).

    Predominately, western societies implement executive coaching.  The United Kingdom reports 70% of companies  use coaching, where 44% of employees report using coaching (Sergers, Vloeberghs, Henderickx, & Inceoglu, 2011), and 93% of companies in the United States (Jowett, Kanakoglou, & Passmore, 2012).  The Coaching International Federation (CIF) reported an increase in membership from 1,500 in 1999 to 10,000 members in 2006 across 80 different countries (Jowett et al., 2012).  Van Genderen (2014) asserted executive coaching is the fastest growing profession for the development of corporate success.

    According to the CIF, coaching offers the definition as an ongoing professional relationship that helps people produce extraordinary results in their lives, careers, businesses, or organizations.  Through the process of coaching, clients deepen their learning, improve their performance, and enhance their quality of life. (Brown & Rusnak, 2010, p. 15)

    Self-Efficacy

    Bandura (1986), a social cognitive theorist, first introduced the concept of self-efficacy.  Social cognitive theory includes grounding in the conceptual understanding that human beings are vigorously committing to their development and actions (Bandura, 1986).  Bandura (1997) postulated self-efficacy refers to a judgment of one’s own ability to perform a specific task within a specific domain.  Thus, self-efficacy is the aspect of self, which refers to how sure (or how confident), the individual is that he or she can successfully perform requisite tasks in specific situations, given one’s unique, and specific capabilities. (p. 4)

    Transformational Leadership

    Transformational leadership is a leadership style, which incorporates relationships and the dynamic interplay between the followers and the leader of a group. Transformational leadership inspires followers to be the best they can be, to accomplish their goals, and values what followers need and want.  By focusing on the follower’s values and aligning those values with an organization’s value this outcome may further the mission of an organization (Givens, 2008).

    Research Design

    A quantitative study with a descriptive correlational design and linear regression analysis was used for this study with established self-efficacy and leadership instruments, which contain quantitative data to assess if a relationship exists between the variables.  Applying a correlational design approach suits the needs of this study because the purpose is to examine if significant relationships exist between three sets of identified variables.

    Population and Sample

    The target population for this research study was executives in leadership positions (CEOs, COOs, VPs, CFOs, and executive management), which was accessed through SurveyMonkey®’s database.  To avoid social and research exclusion, this study did not exclude gender or industry, but was limited to the United State.  The study used a purposive sampling of executives.  A standard email notification was used to notify respondents, that he or she had a new survey to take and the invite was a random group selected through an algorithm process. SurveyMonkey®’s solicited 186 responses with 110 of those responses being fully completed.

    Instrumentation / Measures

    The instruments used in this research study were selected because of their established reliability and validity measurements.  The new general self-efficacy scale (NGSES) and the multifactor leadership questionnaire (MLQ) are established instruments (Bass & Avolio, 1997; Chen, Gully, & Eden, 2001).  Participants received a survey, which incorporated the assessments NGSES and MLQ, to include a follow-up Likert-type scale question to ask how he or she  self-rated their self-efficacy and transformational leadership (low, neutral or high), and then how likely he or she was to  pursue executive coaching (Strongly disagree-Will not pursue executive coaching, Disagree – Might consider pursuing executive coaching within the next 3 months, Neutral, Agree, will definitely pursue executive coaching within the next 3 months, Strongly agree – will pursue executive coaching immediately).
    Data Analysis
    This quantitative correlational study used SigmaXL to run the descriptive statistics, correlations, and linear regression analysis.  Minitab software was utilized to run the Cronbach alpha scores for the reliability and normality testing to reduce the risk of Type I and Type II errors of the instruments for this research project.

    Results

    Demographics

    Male 56.76% self-reported as male (N = 63)
    Female: 43.24% respondents self-reported as female (N = 48)

    Ages:                                                   Position

    18-30 – 22.52% (N=25)                      CEOs – 47.7%  (N = 53)
    31-40 – 33.3% (N=37)                        COOs – 15.3% (N=17)
    41-50 -19.8% (N=22)                         VP – 7.2% (N=8)
    51-60 – 21.6%) (N=24)                       CFOs -7.2% (N=8)
    61-70 – 2.7% (N=3)                            Executive Management – 22.% (N=25)

    Number of Employees

    >100  –                         46.85% (N = 52)
    101 – 1,000 –               30.63% (N=34)
    1,001 – 10,000 –          19.82% (N=22)
    10,001<                       2.7% (N=3)

    RESULTS

    Research Question 1: Does a relationship exist between self-efficacy and transformational leadership?  The Pearson correlation is .691 with p <  0.000 therefore the null hypotheses was rejected and the alternative hypothesis was accepted demonstrating a significant relationship between transformational leadership and self-efficacy.  These findings support  Mesterova, Prochazka, and Vaculik (2014), which stated the two variables are positively paired, contribute to each other, and contribute significantly to effective leadership.

    Research Question 2: To what extent does self-efficacy predict the propensity to pursue coaching?

    The Pearson correlation is .167 with p <  0.08 therefore the null hypotheses must be retained and the alternative hypothesis rejected demonstrating no significant relationship  between self-efficacy  and the propensity to pursue executive coaching.
    This was a surprising result to this researcher.  A possible explanation for this finding is  the purposive sampling of just high-level executives and their self-efficacy was assessed.  The composite variable for actual self-efficacy was 4.5 (on a scale of 1-5) indicating a high-level of self-efficacy as self-reported by the respondents.  The non-significant relationship between self-efficacy and executive coaching may indicate high-level executives feel quite confident, secure in their abilities, and do not feel the need to pursue coaching to enhance or develop their already existing level of self-efficacy.  Additionally, the results of this research underpin Nease et al.’s (1999) research study where participants with robust self-efficacy would exhibit decreases in feedback acceptance.

    Research Question 3: To what extent does transformational leadership predict the propensity to pursue coaching? 

    The Pearson correlation is .362 with p <  0.0001, therefore the null hypotheses was rejected and the alternative hypothesis accepted demonstrating a positive relationship between transformational leadership and the propensity to pursue executive coaching.  The overall composite combined variable score for transformational leadership was high; therefore, transformational leaders may always feel a need to improve their abilities, promoting relationships, and enhancing their followers’ abilities despite their high scores.  Transformational leadership, in definition, is a continuous growth path and one actually never arrives at full transformational leadership.  Therefore, the results of this study support the characteristic domains of transformational leadership by demonstrating a desire to pursue executive coaching for continued growth.

    Research Question 4: What is the relationship between self-efficacy, transformational leadership, and the proclivity to pursue executive coaching? 

    A linear regression model was calculated to predict likeliness to pursue coaching based on transformational leadership and self-efficacy.  A significant regression equations was found (F = 11.8488, p < 0.000), with an R-square adjusted of 0.0905.  The alternative hypothesis was supported indicating a small, only 10%, but significant likelihood when combining transformational leadership and self-efficacy, that an individual will be inclined to pursue executive coaching.  Additionally, this result indicates transformational leadership may be a possible moderator on the variable self-efficacy, as self-efficacy as a standalone variable will not propel an individual to pursue executive coaching.

    Limitations, Assumptions, and Future Research

    A limitation to this current research study was the limitation of SurveyMonkey® to give the respondents in real-time their results of their assessed transformational leadership characteristics and scores of self-efficacy.  This known variable may or may not have a different correlational relationship on the propensity to pursue executive coaching.  Understanding the demographic variables of education, experience, or length in the executives’ current position may also help to elucidate the non-significant relationship between self-efficacy and executive coaching.  Additionally, the industry of executive coaching is an established international industry and this research study was isolated to the United States.  Replicating this same study in other geographic international locations may yield different results as well as for global companies or organizations in other countries.

    Conclusion

    First, to the industry of executive coaching when soliciting possible clients, transformational leadership is a construct, which leaders may be willing to explore, enhance, and continuously develop.  Additionally, combining the assessments of transformational leadership and self-efficacy may influence a leader to pursue executive coaching.  Furthermore, organizations, HR departments, and Board of Directors can administer the MLQ (5x) separately or combined with the NGSES and may see a willingness for the leader to pursue coaching to develop and enhance these skills on a deeper level.  Leaders do appear to want to take charge of their own development and will pursue executive coaching if given the opportunity to assess their transformational leadership and self-efficacy.
    REFERENCES
    Abrell, C., Rowold, J., Weibler, J., & Moenninghoff, M. (2011). Evaluation of a long
    term transformational leadership development program. Journal of Research Personnel, 25(3), 205-224. doi:10.1688/1862-0000
    Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. New Jersey, NY: Prentice Hall.
    Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: NY, Freeman.
    Brown, M., & Rusnak, C. (2010). The power of coaching. Public Manager, 39(4), 15-17.
    Coaching International Federation. (2012).  Retrieved from
    Crainer, S. (2011). Leadership special report. Business Strategy Review, 22(2), 17-22. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8616.2011.00745.x
    Enescu, C., & Popescu D. (2012). Executive coaching – instrument for implementing organizational change. Review of International Comparative Management, 13(3), 378-386.
    Givens, R. (2008). Transformational leadership: The impact on organizational and personal outcome. Emerging Leadership Journeys, 1(1), 4-24. Retrieved from http://www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/elj/issue1/ELJ_V1Is1_Givens.pdf
    Gregory, J., Beck, J. W., & Carr, A. E. (2011). Goals, feedback, and self-regulation: Control theory as a natural framework for executive coaching. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & Research, 63(1), 26-38. doi:10.1037/a0023398
    Hannafey, F., & Vitulano, L. (2013). Ethics and executive coaching: An agency theory approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 115, 599-603. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1442
    Jowett, S., Kanakoglou, K., & Passmore, J. (2012). The application of the 3+1Cs relationship model in executive coaching. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 64(3), 183-197. doi:10.1037/a0030316
    Kampa-Kokesch, S., & Anderson, M. Z. (2001). Executive coaching: A comprehensivereview of the literature. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 53(4), 205. doi:10.1037/1061-4087.53.4.205
    Kay, D. (2013). Language and behavior profile as a method to be used in a coaching
    process. Poznan University of Economics Review, 13(3), 107-129.
    McCall, M. W. (2010). Recasting leadership development. Industrial and OrganizationalPsychology, 3, 3-19. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2009.01189.xMesterova, J., Prochazka, J., & Vaculik, M. (2014) Relationship between self-efficacy,transformational leadership and leader effectiveness. Journal of Advanced Management Science, 3(2), 109-122. doi:10.12720/joams.3.2.109-122
    Moen, F., & Allgood, E. (2009). Coaching and the effect on self-efficacy. Organization Development Journal, 27(4), 69-82.
    Moen, F., & Federici, R. A. (2012). Perceived leadership self-efficacy and coachcompetence: Assessing a coaching-based leadership self-efficacy scale. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching & Mentoring, 10(2), 1-16. doi:10.5539/jel.v1n2p1
    Mukherjee, S. (2012). Does coaching transform coaches? A case study of internal coaching. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching & Mentoring, 10(2), 76-87.
    Nease, A. A., Mudgett, B. O., & Quiñones, M. A. (1999). Relationships among feedback sign, self-efficacy, and acceptance of performance feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 806-814. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.84.5.806
    Segers, J., Vloeberghs, D., Henderickx, E., & Inceoglu, I. (2011). Structuring andunderstanding the coaching industry: The coaching cube. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(2), 204-221. doi:10.5465/amle.2011.62798930
    Shanker, R., Bhanugopan, R., & Fish, A. (2012). Changing organizational climate for innovation through leadership: An exploratory review and research agenda. Review of Management Innovation & Creativity, 5(14), 105-118.
    Stern, L. R. (2004). Executive coaching: A working definition. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 56(3), 154-162. doi:10.1037/1065-9293.56.3.154
    Van Genderen, E. (2014). Strategic coaching’ and consulting: More similar than meetsthe eye. Middle East Journal of Business, 9(1), 3-8. doi:10.5742/mejb.2014.91368
    Witherspoon, R., & White, R. P. (1996). Executive coaching: A continuum of roles. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 48(2), 124-133. doi:10.1037/1061-4087.48.2.124
    ++++++
By Dr. Shauna Rossington, DBA, LMFT.
    0 Comments

    2 + 7 =
    RECOMMENDED ARTICLES

    Executive coaching is back in fashion Economic growth in the UK has led to a resurgence in businesses u

  • On the Lighter side: Fantastic Job Titles for Your Business Card

    On the Lighter side: Fantastic Job Titles for Your Business Card

    Photo credit: getty images

    inc.com
    Please Steal One of These Fantastic Job Titles for Your Business Card. Your job title says a lot about you.

    Sadly, many of us use titles that sound like we’re boring or not that creative. HR manager? Really? There must be a better way. Here are a few creative options.

    1. Chief people officer

    What does this job entail? Who cares? It sounds awesome. It’s the name for the HR officer at Opportunity Network, a company that links CEOs to financial institutions.

    2. Culture operations manager

    Here’s another HR-related title, this one from When I Work. The scheduling app helps managers know when employees are at work.

    3. Chief robot whisperer

    This is a title from the startup Savioke, a company that provides robots to the service industry. It’s an apt description because it relays a sense of wonder and excitement.

    4. Director of bean-counting

    The creative agency Bidlack in Ann Arbor, Michigan, uses this title for the main accountant. It’s a nod to the fact that the role tends to be meticulous (in a good way).

    5. Software ninjaneer

    At a startup called TSheets, they don’t mess around with boring titles. This one nails it because, in many ways, software development is a mysterious and ancient art form.

    6. Director of first impressions

    At publishing house Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, the receptionist has this title. It’s perfect because it is exactly this person’s role at the company.

    7. Digital overlord

    If you have ever worked on a website, you know this term is fitting for the role. They use it at Composites Media, a company that works in the engineering field.

    8. Director of storytelling

    This role creates social media campaigns and strategies for companies. They use it at Eyespeak, a website development company.

    9. Money maestro

    At Delivering Happiness, this is the title for the accounting manager. It is definitely a role of orchestration, especially with pay scales, budgets, and expenses.

    10. Wizard of light bulb moments

    This title, popular on LinkedIn, describes the role of a marketing director. It works because, in a pure sense, marketing is the act of inspiring people to action.

  • MEECO™ (Measuring Excellence in the use of Corporate Executive Coaching in Organizations)

    MEECO™ (Measuring Excellence in the use of Corporate Executive Coaching in Organizations) is a designation that distinguishes organizations that have achieved excellence through weaving executive coaching into the fabric of their culture.

    Our goal is to recognize organizations that provide a benchmark and role model for other organizations that want to increase stockholder and stakeholder value, while experiencing overall success through utilizing mastery level executive coaches who understand how organizations work, and are determined to make a meaningful difference as “enterprise-wide business partners™”.

    www.meeco-institue.org

  • InGage Winter 2016 v1 issue1

    InGage Winter 2016 v1 issue1

    winter 2016 ingage cover

  • The End of Pay Secrecy?

    hreonline.com
    By Julie Cook Ramirez

    Employers are under pressure to divulge salary information. Could one of the last workplace taboos be going by the wayside?

    Thursday, February 4, 2016

    You are not to tell anyone how much you’re paid.

    It’s an unwritten rule at many companies, while other employers openly inform their employees they are not to share salary information with colleagues. A 2010 Institute for Women’s Policy Research/Rockefeller Survey of Economic Security found half of all workers were either “explicitly prohibited or strongly discouraged” from discussing pay with their coworkers.

    That may all be changing, as employees are increasingly seeking to discuss pay issues both inside and outside company walls. In large part, the trend is being driven by social media, coupled with the emergence of millennials in the workplace, according to Kevin Hallock, director of the Institute for Compensation Studies at Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y., and author of Pay: Why People Earn What They Earn and What You Can Do Now to Make More. Younger employees, in particular, are comfortable sharing virtually every detail of their lives, he says, so divulging their salary doesn’t seem like a breach of privacy.

    It’s not just employees who are openly discussing compensation. A small but growing number of employers are making such information available, either internally to the workforce at large or externally, posting all workers’ salaries on their websites for the world to see. The most widely publicized example is Austin, Tex.-based Whole Foods Market, which allows employees to view information on pay and bonuses for everyone from the CEO down. The policy was introduced by then-co-CEO John Mackey in 1986, just six years after the natural-food retailer’s inception. The goal was to encourage competition by helping employees understand why some people are paid more than others. If workers understood what types of performance led to greater compensation, Mackey reasoned, they would be motivated to adopt similar workplace behaviors themselves.

    While Whole Foods is a notable exception, the trend toward pay transparency is almost exclusively limited to “small tech-y companies,” according to Ed Lawler, director of the Center for Effective Organizations at the University of Southern California’s Marshall School of Business in Los Angeles. For the most part, large companies have shied away from the idea, instead adopting a “what you don’t know won’t hurt me” attitude, says Lawler. That’s unfortunate, he says, because they have much to gain from sharing pay information with the workforce.

    “They seem to be stuck in the mindset of ‘If I don’t have to defend it, life is better and people are happier,’” says Lawler. “If you have a reasonably administered pay system that meets a certain agenda, like pay for performance, and it’s defensible, you are better off from an organizational effectiveness point of view of making that clear and visible to people. It’s a big credibility builder.”

    While Hallock sees more employers “experimenting” with pay transparency than ever before, he agrees that “most organizations are very reluctant” to divulge salary information. Usually, that’s because they fear the “chaos that might come with it,” he says, as employees learn they are making less money than colleagues they consider their inferiors. That bedlam can be avoided by adopting an approach in which salary information is accompanied by the opportunity to ask questions, learn more about the connection between pay and performance, and map out a plan for increasing their own earning potential, according to Sarah Moore, a partner in the Cleveland office of Fisher & Phillips.

    “To the extent that you can have a conversation with the employees and provide each of them a context for where they are in the scheme of things, that’s always a preferred approach, rather than just putting it up on the bulletin board,” says Moore.

    That’s the approach taken by Whole Foods. Rather than posting such data on the company intranet for easy access, the retailer requires employees to make an appointment with an HR manager to see others’ salary information. That enables the retailer to achieve its goal of bolstering employee performance through pay transparency.

    Even if an employer chooses not to officially divulge compensation data, technology is enabling employees to disseminate such information themselves via anonymous interoffice messenger apps like “Get the Memo” or websites such as Glassdoor.com, where current and former employees review companies and their management. One enterprising Google employee simply created an Excel spreadsheet where employees could plug in their salary information.

    While conventional wisdom may frown on such activities — and some employers might seek to squelch them — they could have no choice but to accept pay transparency as a component of the 21st century workplace. Legally speaking, says Moore, employees have every right to tell anyone they choose how much they make. Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act makes it legal for employees to discuss the terms and conditions of their employment with each other. That includes salary and benefits.

    The end of pay secrecy is inevitable, says Moore. She advises employers to get in front of the issue and begin laying the groundwork for a smooth transition into the world of pay transparency.

    “The first step is to make sure the most-valued employees are compensated in a manner that is reflective of objective fairness so that when that information is rolled out, they don’t have a situation where a lot of angry people feel burned and ready to walk out the door,” says Moore. “The key is to make sure it’s done in a measured way, keeping an eye on retention of the most valued employees and recognizing you are going to have some people who just aren’t happy regardless.”

    Send questions or comments about this story to hreletters@lrp.com.

  • Fostering Feedback

    hreonline.com
    Fostering Feedback
    By Maura C. Ciccarelli

    Organizations need candid feedback, yet it’s often not supplied as frequently as needed to make solid business decisions. Two experts discuss ways companies can improve their employee-feedback programs.

    Monday, February 1, 2016

    Getting honest employee feedback is a tricky prospect. What strategies we think are effective — having an open-door policy, establishing real or virtual suggestion boxes, conducting online surveys, etc. — are actually wasted efforts if an organization’s culture doesn’t make it safe from the very top for employees to give voice to their complaints and ideas.

    To understand the best ways to encourage and get employee feedback, HRE spoke with James R. Detert, a professor at Cornell University’s Samuel Curtis Johnson Graduate School of Management, and Ethan Burris, associate professor of management at the University of Texas in Austin. Together, they have studied what inhibits workers from giving feedback as well as what organizations are doing right — and wrong — in this two-way communication dance.

    Why is it so important to understand why feedback works or doesn’t work in an organization?

    JD: This world is simply too competitive and complex for anybody at the top to have all the answers and know what all the problems and opportunities are. Learning from people who have their ears to the ground and have more real expertise is crucial to performance. The second reason is simply that we live in a democracy. We say we believe in freedom of speech, ideas, and thoughts, but when you’re in most workplaces, you basically lose your First Amendment rights. When people feel repressed, it’s much harder for them to truly enjoy work, feel engaged and satisfied, and feel they are really contributing.

    EB: The irony is that organizations really need this candid feedback, yet it’s not supplied as frequently as needed for organizations to make good decisions. It’s a very personal thing to be engaged and excited about the work that you do and feel that you are [making] a difference. When your direct boss or someone higher up in the hierarchy doesn’t pay attention, ignores you, [or] doesn’t use your feedback in a way that you think is most appropriate, it’s hugely damaging to your relationship with that organization. It’s a strategic question around how organizations can best take advantage of their employees’ ideas and it’s also a very personal experience.

    How can HR leaders improve the process?

    JD: If you don’t send signals from the top down that [feedback] is safe, that we will listen and that we will do something with it, [then] it’s really an uphill and mostly losing proposition. We’ve been approached by HR folks who say, “We can’t get the CEO or the senior team or C-suite interested or the senior business unit level people, but we want to work with [a lower level of the organization].” My single biggest pushback would be: “Then don’t bother.” [Laughs] You cannot change the culture around speaking up from the bottom up. You change it by the senior people fundamentally changing behavior, policy and practice.

    HR can play a role in aligning how people are evaluated and promoted [if an organization says it] espouses honest communication. If people still believe that the way to advance in the organization is to be a yes-man or yes-woman, you simply won’t have a culture of honest input. People pay a lot of attention to who gets promoted and what they believe are the reasons for promotion.

    If you ask people and organizations to describe [what happens when people speak up], the majority of the urban legends we’ve heard are negative. For example, so-and-so spoke up and was gone a month later. That’s natural because people tend to remember bad stories longer and with more potency. That suggests that HR can play a really active role in celebrating [honest feedback] in formal and informal ways. [Ideas include publicizing internally that] this person shared this idea and saved the company this much money; this person is receiving a reward [for his or her idea]; or [top leaders can] start certain kinds of meetings with a thank you or recognition to an employee for specifically pushing and challenging them and giving them an important suggestion.

    What types of organizations are doing it right?

    EB: It’s a lot easier in very small organizations than in very large ones because of things like access to the top people and being able to influence culture more immediately. [However], a really large tech company in Silicon Valley that I’ve been working with has not only hammered out policies but has also tried to institute things about its culture to explicitly encourage [people] to speak up a lot. Now that [its leaders] have thousands of ideas, the challenge is in asking how do they prioritize them, what system will help with that, and how do they then communicate with employees so they feel that their ideas are heard and considered.

    What resources can help?

    JD: The book Creativity, Inc.: Overcoming the Unseen Forces That Stand in the Way of True Inspiration by Ed Catmul, president of Pixar, has at least 15 concrete instances in which he shows tremendous insight about subtle barriers – changing furniture, redesigning entire office spaces and designing processes for periodic reviews of the films at various stages. As you can imagine, these are [projects] that people have massive identity invested in. He describes a really brilliant understanding of how ambient stimuli such as furniture and room layout [and] power dynamics can make a difference.

    Google has similarly understood that, if you want people to interact more freely, design your organization to have lots of common areas. Design your cafeterias to have long tables so people have to sit together rather than isolate themselves. Google, like other organizations, has used technology not just to collect ideas, but also to have people build on other’s ideas, by allocating points, or fake or real dollars [for] better or worse ideas and volunteering to become owners in those processes.

    EB: The other side of it is, if you are an employee who wants to pitch an idea, how do you tangibly set up those conversations, especially if some of them are a bit more difficult or challenging? Doug Stone and company from Harvard have a book called Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most. That’s an excellent introduction to [setting] the stage so that you can be more productive and not get killed in the process.

    Anything else HR folks should understand about the feedback process?

    JD: More often than not, voice problems are just the unintentional reality of people’s orientation to authority. HR can help managers understand that the challenges of getting your people to be honest with you has nothing to do with being a good or bad person or leader. It’s just the reality of human hierarchy. People are [often] unintentionally shutting others down. It’s really about awareness-raising rather than finger-pointing.

    EB: We have yet to meet a manager who says, “I have a closed-door policy. I’m just not interested in hearing my employees’ feedback.” For the most part, developing a policy is not going to fix the real issue. This is really about culture change. That takes a long time, a lot of effort and a lot of failure along the way.

    JD: Ethan and I have both seen occasions in which HR has led task forces or reviews and probably the net result was only to increase employees’ perceptions that it is futile to speak up because they collect more data, waste more people’s time on surveys or interviews asking about speak-up problems, and then basically do nothing. It’s worth it for HR folks to really consider whether there’s truly a commitment to doing something systemic and over a sustained period of time, because if not, they might actually make the problem worse by engaging in a half-hearted effort.

    Send questions or comments about this story to hreletters@lrp.com.