Webinar: How to Get Your CEO to Drive Employee Engagement Initiatives

It’s nearly impossible to get traction around employee engagement initiatives without the support of the CEO and senior leadership team. During this presentation, we’ll provide tips and share case studies that not only show how to get senior leadership to “bless” engagement initiatives, but to drive them.
During this webinar we will cover:

  • How to talk about employee engagement with your senior leadership team
  • How to position the objectives of employee engagement
  • How to be bold without risking your reputation
  • How to navigate the politics of employee engagement
  • What to do if you have tried and it didn’t work

Free HRCI & SHRM Credit.
Presented by: Kristin Chapman, Greg Zippi, Matt Wride

Watch Now:

Warning! Is Your New CEO a Square Peg in a Round Hole?

Manager showing digital tablet wit executives in office

DecisionWise - Square Peg Round Hole

In the corporate world, the revolving door for CEOs is constantly spinning. The same seems to be true for coaches of any sport, whether it is soccer, the NBA, or college football. Change is good. Too much change, however, is frustrating; not to mention disruptive and often counter productive.

Why, then, are fans and shareholders often anxious to replace the incumbent? The answer lies in the fact that a change at the top is the fastest way to modify, or even reset, an organization’s contract. Which contract? I am referring to the culture-defining contract that exists between the organization and its employees. This contract is so critical that when we talk about it, we use a capital “C.” An organization’s success is built on the Contract, and the organization’s chief executive officer is primarily responsible for building, maintaining, and modifying the Contract. This is item number one on the job description, and it’s the one aspect of his or her duties that cannot be overlooked.

The Contract is built on the unique relationships that exist between the organization and its employees. Some of those relationships are explicit (e.g., you work these many hours and the organization will you pay you for your services). Yet, like an iceberg, the explicit agreements communicate only a small portion of the story.

DecisionWise - Iceberg

Like the ice under the water, it’s the implicit agreements (the psychological contracts) that represent the bulk of an organization’s Contract. When built and managed correctly, an organization’s Contract is foundational in creating great products, great values, great customer experiences, and great returns.

Hopefully, it is self-evident that it’s a risky proposition to hand this crucial obligation over to someone who is new, let alone to someone who is an outsider. Yet, when the wheels start coming off the bus, our instinct tells us that something is wrong with the Contract. And, instead of taking the time to diagnose and find the source of the problems, our knee-jerk reaction is to place the blame on the CEO’s abilities and look for someone new to manage the Contract. Forget about mending the Contract; everyone starts looking for someone new that has an established brand and brings with them a whole new Contract – one that is shiny and fresh.

But, is an outsider always the right decision? Sure, there are notable success stories. Steve Jobs’ second tenure at Apple immediately comes to mind. Nick Saban, the American college football coach who led challenged teams to three national titles, is a demigod in the state of Alabama. The problem is that success stories like these are outliers. They’re not the norm. Because they are wildly successful, popular media makes them a story, which then reinforces the public’s belief that choosing an outsider is the right approach. This is a classic example of the availability heuristic—the phenomenon that explains why our most recent memories impact our decisions1. Likewise, looking for a new CEO, coach, or leader can be neurologically rewarding. Participants experience the thrill of the hunt, secure in their belief that the next “big one” is right around the corner.

Endorphins are everywhere. The potential rewards seem enormous.
Yet, statistical averages tell us otherwise. Remember that most of us are average, and, by definition, half of us work for businesses that are underperforming. Why do we expect the list of game-changing leaders to be long enough to save all the companies that need help? There simply aren’t that many Phil Jacksons to go around to save every team in the NBA.

While choosing the right leader may be the shortest path to success, a CEO change is no guarantee of success. Consider Marissa Mayer’s tenure at Yahoo. Most believed the “wunderkind” from Google would surely save the tech giant’s future. After all, an executive-level Google pedigree is enough to turn any company around, right? The scorecard, however, for Ms. Mayer is incomplete, and there are signs that Yahoo still lacks focus and discipline2. Patience is a virtue that receives more lip service than practice. With the hype and intrigue associated with a new CEO, shareholders, analysts, and boards of directors seem reticent to give the newcomer the time he or she needs to tweak, or even rebuild, the company’s Contract.

Marissa Mayer Yahoo CEO

When deciding on how to find the best candidate as your next CEO, you might consider the following before you choose. First, remember that an outsider may be at an immediate disadvantage. Expectations will already be too high. As such, a newcomer may not be afforded the time frame required to understand and define the changes that need to be made to the organization’s Contract. Second, an outsider might be set in their ways and too beholden to what worked at predecessor companies (i.e., forcing a square peg into a round hole). Or, third, statistics will rear an ugly head, and give you a candidate that is no better suited to the task than the three or four internal candidates that are available (and, quite possibly, have already developed a turnaround plan through an in-depth knowledge of the organization).

Extra care should be given when selecting an outsider. Can an outsider be successful? Absolutely! But for every Marissa Mayer, there is a Mary Barra. Mary Barra CEO GM

Ms. Barra has been with General Motors for years, starting her career with GM as a co-op student when she was 18 years old. She moved through the corporate ranks to become GM’s first female CEO in January of 20143.

Recently, she has been praised for how she dealt with GM’s ignition scandal, and many have suggested that Volkswagen should follow her lead as they deal with their current emissions quagmire4. Success can come both ways – from the outside and from the inside. But, before the allure and appeal of an outsider clouds all judgment, it’s also important not to overlook what may very well be within the walls of the organization. Sometimes, an outsider really is the right option. But, bringing on an outsider also carries a good deal of risk. And it’s precisely that risk that many companies overlook in their quest for the next organizational hero.

Employee Engagement Survey

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic
[2] Nicholas Carson, The New York Times Magazine, December 17, 2014 – http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/21/magazine/what-happened-when-marissa-mayer-tried-to-be-steve-jobs.html
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Barra
[4] Jonathan Chew, Fortune, September 23, 2015 – http://fortune.com/2015/09/23/volkswagen-ceo-mary-barra-gm/

4 Misconceptions CEOs Have about Employee Engagement

4 Misconceptions CEOs Have about Employee Engagement

Listen, I get it. Your employees have a good job that “most people in the world would die for. “They’re only working 40 hours a week. They have healthcare. You’re matching their 401k contributions. You even PAY them for time OFF.

This is the fault of the Millenials, isn’t it? Just one more example of this entitled, me-first generation infecting the workplace. Why don’t we just give everyone a trophy for showing up on time? Better yet, if they’re not happy, they should just get another job, right? Heaven knows in this economy, there are plenty of people who would be willing to take their place.

It’d be nice to help employees be engaged, sure, but it’s not necessary. Ultimately it’s the epitome of a first-world problem, an indulgent luxury, and a darn shame that we even need to address this softest of all soft skills.
But indulge me for a moment to review some common misconceptions out there about employee engagement…

1) Employee Engagement is just another perk

Employee Perks - Massage chair at workIf I gave you a choice between a sharp saw and a dull saw, which would you use to cut something? What about between a computer with more RAM and one with less RAM? Is there ever a scenario where, all other things being equal, you don’t choose the better performing tool?

And if that’s the case, it should apply to employees as well, i.e. you would always choose the better performing employee. I shouldn’t have to make too strong an argument that an employee engaged in their work is going to produce better quality work than one who is not engaged.

Engagement isn’t a perk you trot out to entice potential recruits, or wield in lieu of bonuses. Engagement is a primary motivation, the state of existence in which employees operate. They’re going to be motivated by something; it might as well be the intrinsic nature of the job. Stop thinking of engagement as a perk and think of it more as a core cultural element.

But going back to that false dichotomy from earlier (the choice between an adequate employee and a great employee all other things being equal), all other things aren’t necessarily equal, are they? Generally, when choosing between a good tool and an adequate tool, you take a value/cost ratio into account. You might not need a top-of-the-line tool, just one that you can afford that still gets the job done.

2) Employee Engagement is a premium option, not the value one

My first car was a 1967 Mustang. It wasn’t in the best condition, but as a high school senior, it was the best I could afford. Or so I thought. Within two years, I had replaced a cracked head, the transmission, brakes, tires, spark plugs, front shocks, front and rear speakers, as well as changed the axle alignment and installed a shoulder strap for my seat belts. Turns out, I could have bought a car that was 3 years old instead of 30 and I would have spent about the same amount of money and spent much less time on my back in the garage.

It’s good to be cost-conscious. And you can do it two ways: spend less money upfront, or invest in something that will save money over the long haul. It really depends on your business model which one you choose for employees.

If you have a model that burns through employees really fast and wouldn’t benefit from keeping them around, by all means eschew investing in engagement.

However, reality quickly sets in and reminds us that most companies don’t have that “luxury.” And, even if they did, organizations have a moral responsibility to create a good working environment. So, if you think that “just maybe” it would be better to have employees that work harder, for a longer time, and for less money “What?!” You’re probably saying right now “you can’t just throw that in without any explanation!” You’re right. Let’s do a quick thought experiment, if I gave you a choice between two jobs where one of them was fun, and one of them was fun but helped feed hungry children, would you work for less to do the more meaningful job? This is how jobs like “teacher” and “social worker” and “mom” get away with paying so little. Maybe you should stop throwing money away and invest in helping people engage. And here’s the kicker – it doesn’t take a lot of money (often, none at all) and the investment in creating a culture of engagement becomes self-perpetuating to the point that it stops being an active investment, and turns into muscle memory.

3) Employee Engagement is only for people in cushy jobs

They're in the planning phase of their projectIs your job (or that of your employees) too taxing to worry about engagement? Are long hours, dangerous working conditions, or simply a miserable environment creating a workplace that skews closer to needing a survival mentality than an engaged one? For the answer to this one, I turned to my friend Stephanie, who served two years in the Peace Corps.
Has it ever been too hot to sleep and so you took a walk at night and got attacked by a camel spider? Had your spouse almost die from a scorpion sting? Been mugged on the job? Stranded in the desert without food or water? Had to go into lockdown because an armed militia wanted to kidnap your students? Known exactly what those lockdown procedures were because this happens so often?!

The point isn’t to play “Whose job is the hardest?” (she wins), but rather to point out that even in the most extreme circumstances, you can find engagement. “I can’t say every day was joy-filled. But I can definitely say I loved it,” she told me. “There were awesome moments, such as a student teaching me Chichewa through us singing together as we watched the sun set or thwarting a pretty awful, corrupt public official. But also a general awesomeness that wasn’t about any specific moment.”

Engagement is possible in any job condition because it’s not about the environment alone but, rather, the person in the environment. In fact, it’s probably even more crucial when the environment is dangerous or difficult or tedious because otherwise what motivation keeps them around?

And that’s why this last point is so important…

4) Engagement isn’t a learnable skill

DecisionWise Let’s play Desert Island. You get transported to an island in the middle of the ocean with 50 other people. What skills do you bring to the table that make you a valuable member of the castaways? Some medical know-how? Maybe you’re an engineer and you can help create an aqueduct. I’m a consultant that specializes in employee engagement so I’m probably the first to be cooked for dinner.

When it comes to survival, literal or figurative, most would say employee engagement is not a priority investment. Not to say it wouldn’t help, but as I said earlier, it has the reputation as a perk, a soft squishy management tactic, and something only companies with more money than sense would throw resources at. So yes, employee engagement training tends to come across like a luxury – a “less expensive version of a company yacht.” Right? Not so fast.

One of the quickest of quick wins in business is correcting this misperception. Being a skill in which you can train is actually employee engagement’s strength because it means ANYONE CAN GET BETTER AT IT! I know because I’ve seen it hundreds of times. And the best part is any amount of investment will show dividends. You can’t say that about a ping-pong table in the breakroom. Rather than thinking about employee engagement as a frill, it should be considered an essential component of unlocking your company’s full potential.

Employee engagement, at its most basic, is just making life a more fulfilling experience. It’s not a waste of time but rather a more efficient use of it! Wanting to be engaged is a natural part of the human condition and, therefore not exclusive to any one type of person or job. Do you know those days when you can’t wait to get out of bed? Would you like more of them?
Employee Engagement Survey Sample Download