2012
Slow and steady slays the antelope and wins the rat race
Slow may be the new secret to success.
That is, the greatest workplace productivity could come from taking our time on tasks and tuning out the pressure to do more at once.
So says Peter Bacevice, research director at consulting firm DEGW. Bacevice borrows the language from the growing “Slow Food” movement to coin the term “Slow Work.”
“Many of us recognize that constantly reacting to immediate demands distracts us from focusing on long-term goals and aspirations—and yet, we often feel starved for time to do so,” he says. “Today’s quick wins are undermining tomorrow’s performance.”
This rings true to me. I write and edit best when I carve out an hour and a half or two hours of dedicated work, ignoring IM, email alerts and even phone calls. And it’s the long-term projects that typically are most satisfying or move the needle most. A case in point is Workforce’s recent package on contingent labor strategy, where we stepped back and tried to chart a new course for how companies ought to work with contractors, temps and the like.
Bacevice’s tortoise-over-hare strategy has some strong evidence behind it. For example, research shows that “heavy media multitaskers” are less likely than “light media multitaskers” to filter out distractions and have a more difficult time switching between tasks. In other words, the people constantly answering texts, tweeting, posting to LinkedIn and checking YouTube videos aren’t ultimately as good at focusing on what matters.
Another study found that employees of companies with flexible work practices—defined by reduced working hours & work-from-home options—are more satisfied with their jobs and demonstrate escalated levels of commitment to the organization.
As my colleague Rick Bell points out, “Slow Work” also echoes the “persistence hunting” recounted in the brilliant book Born to Run by Christopher McDougall. Persistence hunting refers to running after antelope or other game for hours on end. Humans can actually out-run any four-legged beast over long distances, thanks largely to our ability to cool ourselves by sweating. And most of the chase is at a jogging pace, not a sprint. Armed with our cooling system and marathoner legs, one theory goes, our ancestors became deadly, efficient hunters and eventually rose to dominance as a species.
To be sure, there are times these days when we need to sprint like cheetahs or flit about like hummingbirds. But I think there’s a strong case to be made for remembering our inner marathoner, our latent persistent hunter.
Slow and steady can slay the antelope and win the rat race.
A version of this post originally appeared at Ed’s Work in Progress blog at Workforce.com.
2012
Why firms should care about the plight of un-free agents
Can empathy increase business results?
I think it probably can when it comes to contingent workers.
Companies are turning increasing to contractors, temps and outsourced workers. Some of them are happily self-employed or untroubled to be working for a temporary staffing agency—high-skilled professionals especially seem to like independent contractor status.
But a good portion of today’s free agents aren’t working that way voluntarily. They would prefer the steadier situation of regular employment. They may have been laid off during the downturn, or they may be straight out of college and eager to grasp the lowest rung of the career ladder.
For these folks, temp or contractor work is a last resort rather than a first choice. They are more un-free than free agents. As such, they probably enter into work assignments with an engagement deficit. They may be determined to do a decent job, but by definition aren’t thrilled to be working as they are.
It’s hard to say what percentage of contingents are the un-free ones. The U.S. Department of Labor hasn’t studied the topic since 2005. At that point, more than half of contingent workers–55 percent–would have preferred a permanent job.
For a mini-portrait of an involuntary contingent worker today, consider Laurie Barnes. Laid off by consulting firm Mercer in 2010, theChicagoresident is the midst of a nine-month contract through a staffing agency. She is grateful for her project, which involves revamping a talent management program for a company, and expects to be able to tout it as she pursues future opportunities. But she misses traditional employment. For one thing, she would like the financial stability—including retirement and health care benefits—of a full-time job.
She also wants to get back on the corporate career ladder. “I’m later in my career but by no means am I ready to plateau,” says, Barnes, who has spent 20 years in the field of HR consulting. “As a contractor, it’s a plateau.”
To Barnes and others, the very language around impermanent work can sting. “The word ‘contractor’ connotes ‘task,’ ‘a pair of hands,’ ‘fill-in,’ ” Barnes says. “It doesn’t necessarily convey ‘strategy,’ ‘someone who moves us forward.’ It’s just a warm body.”
If companies want to get the most of their “warm bodies,” they need to see things from the perspective of un-free agents. If they do, firms are more likely to take some simple steps to improve matters for both sides. Steps like working hard to treat temps as people rather than cogs in day-to-day office encounters. Like including contingents in social events and offering feedback. Like soliciting contingents’ ideas about strategic matters and inviting them to apply for full-time openings. In short, companies are more likely to give contingents an “arms-length embrace.”
And that is likely to encourage impermanent workers to care a bit more, to work a bit harder, to produce better results.
It’s the business engine of empathy.
A version of this post originally appeared at Ed’s Work in Progress blog at Workforce.com.
2012
Who knew my matchmaking would lead to the Workforce Educational Organization?
There’s a new professional group on the scene, and I’m proud to say I played a small part in its arrival.
The group, the Workforce Educational Organization, is focused on the smart use of scheduling software and other workforce management tools. I’m hopeful the WEO will do good things for both employers and employees. So I’m glad I figured into its origins.
Even that modest phrasing, though, risks giving me too much credit. All I did was connect a couple of people passionate about people management.
The back story: several years ago I wrote a story about sophisticated scheduling applications, including the way companies could take the tools too far. That is, they could try to match staffing levels so closely to customer demand or profitability that they gave workers highly variable schedules and even sent employees home midshift. This causes havoc in personal lives and leads to high turnover and absenteeism—which ultimately bites companies in the bottom line.
One of my major sources was Susan Lambert, a professor at the University of Chicago who has examined the hidden costs of just-in-time scheduling. Another source was Lisa Disselkamp, a business consultant who has specialized in workforce management technology. In the wake of the story, Disselkamp asked me for research about hourly workers in the retail field. I suggested she contact Lambert.
I didn’t realize then that this referral would lead to a lot of promising collaboration. Disselkamp went on to spearhead the formation of the WEO, making Lambert the head of its academic advisory council.
The WEO, as we discuss in our upcoming May cover story for Workforce Management magazine, opened its doors last year and is launching a new professional certification next year. Industry groups and technology credentials are widespread. But unlike some professional groups related to people management, the WEO is making employee concerns central. Lambert is writing parts of the book that will serve as the basis of the organization’s new Workforce Asset Management Professional certification. The WEO also has been in talks with the U.S. Labor Department and plans to reach out to organized labor.
Let me state for the record that I have no financial stake in the WEO, nor do I have any official role in the organization.
But to me, the WEO is a good example of an all-win approach. Workforce management professionals improve their skills and knowledge; companies get more value out of their software; vendors get happier customers; scholars get a chance to affect the real world of work; and workers get schedules that work for them. We need more business and professional organizations with this sort of inclusive vision.
So I’m proud of my little matchmaking contribution to the WEO. May it go on to do big things.
A version of this post originally appeared at Ed’s Work in Progress blog at Workforce.com.
2012
Drag race
Work is a drag in the U.S. right now.
It is literally dragging down American’s well-being, according to the latest numbers from research firm Gallup Inc. This is so even despite evidence that both the economy and hiring are picking up. Still, there’s a bright spot for employers amid the gloominess. With so many workers glum on the job, companies have a great opportunity to stand out from the pack with a healthy, happy work climate.
The dispiriting numbers I’m talking about come from the Well-Being Index produced by Gallup and consulting firm Healthways. The index is made up of six component indexes: life evaluation,emotional health, work environment, physical health, healthy behaviors, and access to basic necessities. The work environment index, in turn, has four items: job satisfaction, ability to use one’s strengths at work, supervisor’s treatment (more like a boss or a partner), and whether the work environment is an open and trusting one.
From Jan. 1 to Feb. 1, the overall Well-Being Index skidded 0.2 to 66.4 out of a possible “ideal wellbeing” score of 100. Work environment was one of four components overall that fell during the month. All of these declines were less than a point. But work environment is the component that has fallen most since the Well-Being Index began in January 2008. It’s dropped 3.9 points to 47.4. That’s roughly four times the decrease of the second-greatest drop, a 1.1 decline in access to basic necessities. The only other component that is lower now than in January 2008 is physical health, which has slipped just 0.2 points.
And work environment is the component with the lowest absolute score. Life evaluation is second-lowest at 49.6, and the rest are at least 63.9 or more.
Is it a surprise that work is bumming out Americans more than any other factor? Not really. Trust is down after years of layoffs and continued worries about the overall economy. Job satisfaction has taken a hit amid the “work-more economy”—the flip side of the job-less recovery in which many workers have been charged with extra duties. And endless restructurings have weakened bonds with ever-busier bosses.
Given that work makes up such a large part of life overall, it’s probably a fair guess that grim, often grueling days at the office are pulling down Gallup scores in other categories such as physical health and life evaluation.
But there’s a silver lining in all of this for employers. When everybody’s happy across the economy, it’s hard to stand out as an attractive, productive employer. But gloomy times are when a glowing culture can get you noticed and give you a boost against the competition. Positive reviews—whether by word-of-mouth, formal awards or online accolades—attract new talent and help retain excellent employees. And an effective, inspiring work climate can fuel strong, sustainable business results.
What are you doing in this dark work climate? Are you paying attention to employees’ job satisfaction and career goals, training managers to be effective, cultivating trust? Are you creating a workplace that’s not a drag, but which boosts workers’ spirits?
A version of this post originally appeared at Ed’s Work in Progress blog at Workforce.com.
2011
Ready for the next New Deal?
Don’t be surprised if the U.S. decides to launch the Next New Deal in the next few years. And if it does, will your company be prepared for a tighter labor market and renewed growth?
When I say a Next New Deal may be on the horizon, I mean there are increasing signs that the way out of our prolonged economic slump may be a massive federal jobs program. Something on the scale of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Works Progress Administration—the New Deal program that employed millions of people to build roads, parks and schools.
What signs am I talking about? First, the economic slump and jobless recovery have lasted a long four years. Unemployment officially clocks in at 9 percent, and the broader figure that includes those who’ve stopped looking for a job or are stuck in part-time positions is 16 percent—translating to more than 25 million Americans.
There’s growing recognition that private-sector companies aren’t going to get the country back to work any time soon. Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio speaks of “job creators”—businesses—going “on strike” to protest regulations and other government policies. It may not be that dramatic. Companies have been able to squeeze more productivity out of their current workforce. They have been locating more jobs overseas, including critical research and development positions. And they are hoarding cash to get through any additional economic shocks—a wise move in the view of business guru Jim Collins.
In this climate, some unorthodox thoughts are springing up. Start with the Occupy movement, and its claim that the U.S. economy does not serve the vast majority of Americans. Then there are maverick individual voices. Last year, former Intel Corp. CEO Andy Grove published an essay calling for a “job-centric economic theory” and a tax on the product of offshored labor. While not advocating specifically for a new Works Progress Administration, Grove broke ranks with the common corporate view that government is more problem than solution.
And last week, one of the most emailed stories at the New York Times was an essay by sociologist Herbert Gans titled “The Age of the Superfluous Worker.” Gans noted a number of factors that have led to excess workers over the years, including less-deadly wars, fewer poverty-related deaths, offshoring and automation. The trends carry grave risks, he warned. “A society that has permanently expelled a significant proportion of its members from the work force would soon deteriorate into an unbelievably angry country, with intense and continuing conflict between the have-jobs and have-nones,” Gans writes.
Among his prescriptions: “America will have to finally get serious about preserving and creating jobs—and on a larger, and more lasting, scale than Roosevelt’s New Deal.”
Oh, I know that a Next New Deal has no chance of getting through Washington in the near term. But just as the Tea Party and the Occupy movements sprung up quickly to change the terms of debate, I wouldn’t be surprised if a movement builds in the coming years for the sort of public works programs that Gans and others advocate: more teachers, infrastructure improvements, and more research and development into clean energy technology.
What would massive government hiring mean to private-sector employers? First and foremost, it would mean a tighter job market. The companies who have established themselves as good employers—ones that are caring, inspiring and data-driven in their management—will have a much easier time attracting and retaining workers. Those that have taken advantage of employees during this slack labor market by working them too hard or skimping on compensation may find themselves facing higher turnover and fewer job takers.
A Next New Deal also would likely goose economic activity overall. Again, those companies that have short-changed employees for short-term benefit are at risk. They will not have an engaged, capable workforce ready to charge forward and seize market opportunities. Employers with a longer-term perspective on employees, by contrast, will be poised to race ahead with more-enthused, better-trained teams.
So if and when America puts itself back to work, will your organization be ready?
A version of this post originally appeared at Ed’s Work in Progress blog at Workforce.com.
2011
Zynga’s stock option grab
According to the Wall Street Journal (subs. req.), in preparation for its upcoming IPO, Zynga is demanding that some of its early-hire employees – who have been classified as MIAs by CEO, Mark Pincus – either surrender some of their stock options or be fired. Yuck!
Pincus’ frustration in having committed too many options to employees who turned out to be duds is understandable. But the reputational damage of breaking this commitment is likely to do more harm than good in the months and years to come. It just seems greedy. And as the Occupy Wall Street phenomenon is making apparent, people have grown weary of greed. Our society has moved past an era where it was celebrated as a virtue. Greed is now recognized for what it is – a vice.
Not surprisingly, employees at Zynga have less-than-enthusiastic views about Pincus’ leadership; he enjoys only a 50% approval rating from employees who have ranked him on Glassdoor.com. And Zynga’s overall Glassdoor.com approval rate means that it is only an “OK” place to work. One employee sums it up like this: “good food, confused management.”
That doesn’t bode well for its future.
2011
A bad place to be: in denial about what workers want
Ignorance is one thing. Willfully turning a blind eye to what employees care about these days is another. That’s called denial. And many companies are in it—at their own peril.
In a recent study, consulting firm Towers Watson found that companies don’t realize how much workers want employment stability. Employees in the U.S. most frequently cited job security as the reason why they would join an organization.
This was true for employees overall and high-potential performers. When U.S. employers were asked why employees overall and high-potential workers would join a company, job security didn’t even rank among their top five most frequent responses.
That disconnect would be understandable—except that these findings are nearly identical to those from 2009. Watson Wyatt Worldwide (one of the firms that merged to form Towers Watson) reported that job security was a top priority for employees but failed to make it onto employers’ radar screens.
Even if company officials polled by Towers Watson this year missed that earlier study, it’s hard to fathom how they could miss the significance of job security by a mile. Everything about our current economy—the plight of those laid off, the difficulties of young adults in finding a job, the travails of homeowners facing foreclosure—screams that people are seeking a degree of financial stability.
It’s a similar story on workplace stress. Towers Watson’s report shows companies don’t have much of a clue about the importance of job-related anxiety. “Work-related stress” was the reason U.S. employees overall and U.S. top-performers most frequently cited for why they would leave their organization.
When employers were asked about reasons high performers would jump ship, stress didn’t rank among their top-five most common responses. Employers did rank “work-related stress” fifth for why employees overall would leave.
The issue of what some call worker fatigue (and what my colleague Rita Pyrillis and I call the “work-more economy”) was not as prominent a few years ago. But very visible signs have been available to employers for a while. Among them are the harrowing stories of air-traffic controllers falling asleep at the switch.
Why are employers burying their heads in the sand on job security and stress? It may be that companies feel powerless to do much about either. They can’t guarantee absolute job security in an uncertain economy and may feel compelled to demand more and more of their workforce to stay afloat.
But there are steps companies can take to bolster employees’ sense of stability and ease their stress—such as provide additional training and give promotions to workers whose responsibilities have increased.
In any event, deliberate ignorance won’t help anyone. And it can hurt companies when it comes to recruiting and retaining talent, improving productivity and maintaining their good name.
Reputations are at stake because in this era of interactivity, overworked employees are expressing themselves online. Consider this comment about an engineering company visible to all at feedback site Glassdoor.com: “Project managers are overworked by the principals and have no time to mentor and steer young staff people in the right direction who, in turn, are overworked. To top it off, pay is miniscule. Overall, the place is a plantation.”
My guess is, no company wants to be labeled as a plantation. Even if you can’t give workers everything they want, stop ignoring their desires. In denial is a bad place to be.
A version of this post originally appeared at Ed’s Work in Progress blog at Workforce.com.
2011
Finding good (and not-so-good) employers
As we described previously, arriving at how to rate companies on the Good Company Index™ was, at times, a long slog. Often, we found ourselves confronting disappointing data quality – or even no data at all – in areas that we wanted to be able to including in the rankings.
Fortunately, however, these issues were not problems when constructing the good employer component of the ratings.
If you turn back the clock to ten (or even five) years ago, if we wanted to know who was a good (or not-so-good) employer, we would have turned first to the Fortune 100 Best Companies to Work for – which would have given us insight only on that small subset of companies that had chosen to devote the resources to providing all the information necessary to Fortune. And there were rankings of companies with the best training (a great, but narrow, measure) and no doubt an occasional article or two here and there that talked about a specific company, but that was about it – nothing comprehensive.
(We had some additional information on certain organizations from data requests we sent out related to our investment portfolios at Bassi Investments – but that wasn’t information that was useful publicly.)
Bottom line: until recently, there was no comprehensive data source for information on what it was like to work for most companies. Vault.com and a couple of others tried to create clearinghouses for that sort of information, but those efforts didn’t take off as broadly as we had hoped.
Fortunately, Glassdoor.com, founded in 2007, got it right. The company has data on tens of thousands of organizations – ratings and reviews directly from employees within those firms.
Transparency in this area had finally arrived – great news for job seekers, for the handful of investors who want to take such information into account, and for the growing number of consumers who want to spend their money with companies they respect.
And, of course, great news for us too. We tapped the Glassdoor rankings as the primary source of information on what companies are good employers (we supplemented it with information from the Fortune 100 Best Companies to Work for).
At the time we compiled the numbers for the book, the companies in our rankings (publicly-traded companies in the 100 largest companies in the US) with the highest Glassdoor ratings were Procter & Gamble, Chevron, Goldman Sachs, and Apple. The lowest? RiteAid, Supervalu, and Hewlett-Packard.
Some of those are certainly not surprising while others are big surprises, especially based on long-standing reputation (Hewlett-Packard!)
The very existence of the Glassdoor employer rankings helps to illustrate the recent rise of what we call “technology-fueled people power,” which is changing the world by improving what we know about the companies in our lives.