Mangoes and Engagement: A Clear Connection

Due to an abundance of natural resources and a successful tourist industry, Fiji has one of the most developed economies in the South Pacific.  Known for beautiful scenery and warm people, the more than 300 islands—most of which are not permanently inhabited—are home to just under 900,000 residents

Each morning, local fruit vendors awake before Fiji’s beautiful sunrise to pack their wares to small marketplaces throughout the islands.  They toil at the local market until their supply of goods for the day is exhausted, or until the market closes for the day.

Despite its “better-than-most economy,” it is estimated that as many as 25 percent of Fijians live below the poverty line.   Fijian fruit vendors know all too well that their ability to support themselves and their families is dependent upon their ability to peddle produce.  So, each morning they line up amongst the other vendors, each seeking to sell enough fruit to, in turn, purchase other goods.

HELP International is a not-for-profit organization that was founded to assist individuals, such as those in Fiji, in fighting poverty.  Each year, HELP sends volunteers—most of them college students—to various locations throughout the globe to work with locals on various development projects.  One area in which HELP lends support is in teaching basic business concepts, so that people such as Fijian fruit vendors are able to support themselves more effectively.

HELP Program Director, Arturo Fuentes, recounts the volunteers’ experience in working with a group of mango sellers in one of these markets:
Upon arriving at the market, it quickly became apparent that all vendors of like products or produce situated themselves next to others selling very similar products.  All banana vendors set up stands and carts next to other banana vendors, all fish vendors next to others selling fish, and so forth.

As the HELP volunteers worked with the mango merchants to help them become more effective, they taught the vendors a basic concept which was, surprisingly, a new piece of knowledge—that of differentiation.

The concept of differentiation was basic to most of the young volunteers, who grew up in the U.S.  After all, everyone knows that you don’t build a McDonald’s next to another McDonald’s, right? You must find a way to differentiate yourself from those around you—location, product, price, etc.  Yet, in this marketplace, the mangoes sold by one vendor were identical in price, quality, size, and every other way to the mangoes sold a mere four feet to the right or four feet to the left.  And, next to those carts, were similar carts, each selling identical mangoes—most of them from the same origination points.   Zero differentiation.  Limited sales.

The volunteers had a simple, yet powerful idea.  What would happen if one of the vendors set up shop the next morning in a location separate from his produce compadres?  By simply moving out of the “mango section” and into another area, the vendor might gain some differentiation by having mangoes available to those who were purchasing, for example, fish.  It certainly seemed like a good idea, and they found a vendor who, hesitantly, agreed to try it.  The next day, he moved his cart to another location, and the strategy appeared to be working.  That is, until the next day.

Upon arriving at the market the following day, the volunteers noticed that the mango seller had again returned to the area in which his colleagues were located.

“Surely the new location was better for the hawking of mangoes than was the location with all the other mango vendors,” reasoned the volunteers.  However, they also learned something important.  For these vendors, their daily stint at the market was not simply limited to produce transactions.  It was about connection.

The volunteers learned that the market was, for these individuals, a place where they could connect with others, even if they were, technically, competitors.  They were more engaged by the social connection—one that had been there for many years—than they were by a monetary exchange, even if it meant less Fijian dollars went home that evening.  Interestingly, the volunteers did not indicate whether the lone vendor’s day-long move had been profitable; it didn’t matter.  There was something of greater importance.  For the mango sellers, connection is a powerful motivator.

This need for connection isn’t limited to Fijian mangoes.  Earlier this month, the UN released some interesting findings.  According to the report, of the Earth’s 7 billion inhabitants, 6 billion have cell phones.  Possibly not surprising, until you learn that only 4.5 billion have proper sanitation.  Is that right?  1.5 billion people have cell phones, but no toilet or sanitary waste disposal?  What does this say about the importance of being connected?

Employee Engagement and Connection

We find similar results in our employee engagement work when it comes to the importance of connection.  A significant majority of employees cite a social connection to the workplace as a major factor in why they choose to remain with their current employers.

Is connection really that important?  Ask your employees (or your local mango vendor).  You can probably reach them by cell phone.

Related Post: Telecommuting and Engagement: Evaluating the Tradeoff between Autonomy and Connection
Related Post: Get Back to Work, Yahoo! How Losing Connection Hinders Employee Engagement
Related White Paper: ENGAGEMENT MAGIC®: The Five Keys of Employee Engagement

Millennials and Social Connection: A New Generation of Employee Engagement

As a Millennial who is also passionate about HR, I’ve been intrigued by the amount of attention my generation has received as we have begun entering the workforce.  Many of us are looking for full-time opportunities right out of college, while others of us are testing the waters (so-to-speak) with internships and part-time, entry-level positions.

A routine Google search for “Millennials in the workplace” reveals a seemingly endless supply of articles, most illustrating one overwhelming trend: employers are uneasy about and somewhat dumbfounded by the idea of a Millennial workforce.  The Washington Post projects that Millennials will make up 75 percent of the American workforce by 2025, so employers should probably start getting used to us.

What’s so different about us?  After all, elements of employee engagement are valid for every generation, right?  Yes!  The five elements of employee engagement are, in fact, applicable across all generations.  The core difference, though, resides in how the different generations prioritize each element.

Millennials and Social Connection

According to a Journal of Business Psychology article written by Andrea Hershatter and Molly Epstein, one stark difference between Millennials and other generations is our high need for social connection.

In 2006, Hershatter and Epstein conducted a study on trends of Millennials’ hopes, dreams, and aspirations.  The responses received through this study were very revealing.  When describing the ideal boss, one representative respondent said, “He should be honest and open minded.  He should be able to guide and should be a friend and co-worker.”  Wait a second . . . Friend?  Co-worker?  What happened to organizational hierarchy and maintaining professional distance from those who report to you??!?!

As if the unnamed respondent’s statement isn’t enough, findings in the same study indicate 66 percent of millennial business students reportedly agreed with the following statement: “I prefer personal relationships with my bosses.”  What of the Gen Xers?  Only 52 percent responded similarly—clearly, there’s a significant difference in the prioritization of social connection.  This trend is also evident in DecisionWise employee engagement survey data, which shows Millennial survey respondents as generally being the population least satisfied with levels of social connection in their organizations.

So, the message to all employers looking to engage their millennial employees: connect with them.  Create an organizational culture that fosters and promotes development of positive relationships among employees and across departments and regardless of job title. The side benefit is that employees from other generations are also likely to respond well—higher levels of connection within your organization can help engage employees from any generation.

And to you middle managers, try not to have a myocardial infarction if you discover one of your new Millennial employees has a lunch or golf date with your boss’s boss.  According to Hershatter and Epstein, Millennials expect to work in hierarchically flat organizations with ready access to senior leadership.  If this kind of access is not typical, there’s a good chance we’ll initiate it ourselves.

If we Millennials can’t find a satisfactory level of social connection in our organizations, we will leave and seek a different professional setting—one that fosters openness and collaboration.  Personally, I wouldn’t quit a job that didn’t allow me to check Facebook in the office, but others from my generation have been known to do just that.  Just sayin’.

Related Post: Mangoes and Engagement: A Clear Connection
Related Post: Telecommuting and Engagement: Evaluating the Tradeoff between Autonomy and Connection
Related Post: Get Back to Work, Yahoo! How Losing Connection Hinders Employee Engagement
Related White Paper: ENGAGEMENT MAGIC®: The Five Keys of Employee Engagement

Money: Happiness, Satisfaction and Engagement are Completely Different Things

DecisionWise Show Me The Money

Can Employee Engagement be bought?

An interesting question, and one that is sure to generate multiple opinions.  We repeatedly hear that money can’t buy happiness.  In his recent article Does Money Make You Happier?, Dr. Hal Hershfield examines the effects of money on happiness.  His article concludes that money affects overall well-being.  Therefore, Hershfield explains that richer countries don’t have “happier” citizens; they have citizens who are more satisfied with their lives.  We find the same relationship between happiness and satisfaction when looking at employee engagement survey results.

Satisfaction and Engagement

In a previous blog “Are Your Employees Engaged or Just Satisfied?,” we discussed how compensation initiates a transactional relationship based on satisfaction.  In the blog, Dr. Maylett, explains that employers provide compensation to employees who, in return, perform their job duties.  It’s a contractual, transactional relationship.  Competitive compensation is expected by employees.  Once pay rates fall below competitive levels, the contract is no longer being fulfilled, and employees become dissatisfied and either underperform or seek new employment—or both.
Download: Employee Satisfaction Survey

Happiness and Employee Engagement

So, what about happiness? We find that happiness is more closely related to employee engagement.  Obviously money matters (try telling your employees, “Oh, by the way, we won’t be paying you in April”), but not in the way that many people assume.  Too often HR and Management teams, anxious to boost employee survey scores or myriad other factors, focus on compensation components as a way to engage their employees.  Remember, satisfied employees aren’t always engaged or happy employees.  In fact, they may not even be productive employees.  So, let’s take a look at what contributes to happiness and engagement.

As humans, we long for social interaction and friendships (even the raging introverts like me).  By having friendships in the workplace, we experience higher levels of social connection—one of the five essential elements of employee engagement.  Knowing and getting along with the people we work with makes us excited to go to work, because we’ll be able to work with and be around those we have brought into our circle.  Friendships—or, at the very least, a sense of connection with coworkers—lead to employee engagement.

Another factor that contributes to happiness and engagement is feeling a sense of meaning.  If we find meaning in the activities we preform, we will become more engaged.  This rule is best illustrated by an anecdotal example:

In high school I had a job working at Papa Murphy’s Take ‘n’ Bake Pizza.  The job didn’t pay well, but I was still engaged.  The company espouses a zealous prioritization of exemplary customer service and complete customer satisfaction.  I noticed how the company made customer service a priority above all other things, which aligned with my personal values.  Since I believed customers anywhere should receive great service, I was happy to work for a company that shared that belief.  I found a sense of meaning in my job by contributing to the top priority of the company while fulfilling one of my personal values.

Notice how neither of the two elements above (connection and meaning) have anything to do with compensation!  Both elements are essential when trying to achieve—or augment—levels of employee engagement.  Yet, we often hear of a manager sitting down in the HR Manager’s office, saying, “We have to give her an increase or she’ll walk.” While this may be the case at times, we typically find that compensation is merely an easy-out for a more complex issue.  Money can only do so much.

Next time your organization rolls out an employee engagement survey, be careful when you examine the results.  Take it for what it is.   Questions that deal with levels of benefits and compensation are generally rated poorly by employee respondents.  It’s always been the case, and likely always will be.  None of us is paid what we (think we) are worth. Throwing more money at employees isn’t the first place to start when trying to improve employee engagement.  You may get satisfied employees, but satisfaction won’t translate into engagement or happiness.
Employee Engagement Survey Sample Download

Telecommuting and Engagement: Evaluating the Tradeoff between Autonomy and Connection

Telecommuting is defined as working from home at least one hour per week; therefore, some people probably don’t even realize they’re telecommuting. Looking at telecommuting from an employee-engagement standpoint offers some interesting insights behind companies’ recent movement to promote face-time amongst all employees.

First of all, it’s important to note that, in order to be “engaged” in one’s work, one must have basic needs met—compensation, safety, respect, etc.  That goes without saying, and we call these “satisfaction factors.”  They don’t particularly excite an employee, but when they’re not in place, that individual quickly becomes dissatisfied.  It’s a form of contract between employer and employee—you provide me with “X” and I provide you with “Y.”  Engagement, on the other hand, involves a choice to give one’s discretionary effort, often above what is “contracted” for.

Our research has shown that there are key contributing factors to employee engagement.  We use the acronym ENGAGEMENT MAGIC® as a quick reminder of these factors: Meaning; Autonomy; Growth; Impact; Connection.

But here’s an interesting polarity.  With the recent notoriety associated with telecommuting, two of these factors appear to be at odds—Autonomy and Connection.  The issue: Does offering telecommuting improve levels of autonomy?  Similarly, does limiting telecommuting increase levels of connection?

Autonomy—From an engagement standpoint, autonomy is the empowerment of individuals to control or shape career/professional dynamics associated with responsibility and environment.  Employees who work from home should, therefore (in theory, at least), have incredibly high levels of autonomy.  Why?  Because they directly control their environment, processes, and deliverables associated with their employment—much more so than they would by working at the corporate office.

Working entirely at the corporate office can still provide high levels of autonomy. Companies like Google, Skullcandy, and Apple encourage (or require) employees to devote part of their time to working on a personal, self-directed project.  This stipulation clearly promotes autonomy, while still maintaining connection between employees.

Connection—We observe instances of connection when employees develop relationships of trust and respect with their colleagues and companies (including their manager, peer, and direct reports) that enable and motivate them to collaborate, resolve conflict, innovate, and develop themselves, others, and the organization.  Many have argued (accurately, I might add) that working from home severely limits an employee’s ability to develop any significant levels of connection.

Even with tools like Google+ hangouts, Skype, email, and LinkedIn, developing relationships of trust and respect is difficult to do unless face-to-face time exists.  While telecommuting can establish professional levels of trust and respect, only social interaction can develop strong relationships between employees.  Connection is strongest when an employee feels that they can be themselves around people; their peers, colleagues, and supervisors have their back, and they are liked and appreciated.

With this evaluation in mind, we can easily see how levels of autonomy are bolstered when employees are allowed to telecommute for a significant amount of their work.  Likewise, we observe how limiting telecommuting yields positive effects on connection.

Which aspect is more important?  Naturally, every worker will value these factors differently.  I’d venture to say the introverted employee values autonomy just as highly as the extroverted employee values connection.  Is the solution really as simple as distinguishing between personality types?
5 Keys of Employee Engagement White Paper

Get Back to Work, Yahoo! How Losing Connection Hinders Employee Engagement

As I type this blog, I am gazing out the window of my home office at the beautiful snow-covered mountains of Utah. Not day-dreaming, really. Thinking.

It’s certainly a better view than looking across the busy street I see from my regular office. I try to work from home at least once a week. I find it allows me to focus on those things I can’t necessarily accomplish at the office—writing being one of these. Even when I set aside blocks of time at the office, I am regularly interrupted by emails, urgent phone calls, and the familiar, “hey, boss, do you have two minutes?” I love my team, but multiply those interruptions by 30 and a day goes by fairly quickly without much getting crossed off my “important-but-not-urgent” list.

Working from home once in a while is critical to my role. For hundreds of workers at Yahoo!—affectionately known as Yahoos!—that remote work option has just changed. They have just learned that the days of working from home are over, at least if they want to remain employed at Yahoo! after June.

CEO Marissa Mayer has done a lot to focus on the struggling company’s dearth of employee engagement. She has revamped the organization structure, and has worked hard to improve the employee experience through such actions as providing employees with smartphones and bringing in free food. But, remember, this is the same CEO that told reporters, “My maternity leave will be a few weeks long, and I’ll work throughout it.” According to CNN, Mayer issued a company-wide memo through HR dictating that the 800-1,000 Yahoos! currently working from home would need to relocate to the office if they wished to remain employed. Ouch!

I’ll admit, even though I managed to shower and dress for the day, the likelihood of me running a razor across my face today is about nil. Why bother? The kids won’t even be home from school until after 3, and they could care less about whether dad maintains a personal appearance conducive to a professional working environment. So what must be going through the heads of hundreds of Yahoos! that are accustomed to working remotely?

For many Yahoos!, the difference to date between casual Fridays and any other day of the week has been whether or not to include underwear with the daily sweatpants ensemble. Working from home brings with it the obvious advantages of no commute, a more comfortable environment, and the ability to be home when the salsa-of-the-month-club package shows up at the doorstep (thanks, DecisionWise team—still loving the Christmas gift!).

Numerous articles also extol the business virtues of remote employees: reduced costs, higher levels of productivity, and increased engagement and dedication, to name a few. However, other studies point out the obvious opposite side of the equation: personal distractions, difficulty to manage, distrust, and lack of social connection.

Regarding the last point—social connection…
Citing improved communication and collaboration as key reasons for the change, Mayer announced that in order for Yahoo! to be one of the best places to work, employees had to be in close proximity of one another. While some would argue these points (especially those that have enjoyed the benefits of distance), there is a lot to be said about social interaction that cannot necessarily be achieved through email, telephone, or video conferencing.

Last week I participated in two-day leadership development session with a stellar team of individuals. One constant theme was the plea, from those working remotely, to “PLEASE” include them in communication and important information. While very professional, and certainly hard working, these offsite individuals were not feeling that connection so necessary to engagement.

As we review those factors that contribute to engagement—Meaning, Autonomy, Growth, Impact, and Connection—we clearly see that a feeling that one belongs to a greater community (i.e., work team, department, organization, company, etc.) helps us to be more engaged in the work we do. We more clearly recognize our part in the greater whole. Some may claim to have the ability to maintain this connection while working remotely, but common sense tells us that communication and collaboration is about much more than a few emails and a weekly conference call. Working remotely, I may miss this important factor, regardless of my work ethic.

Remote employees often report feeling disconnected from the organization. I first learned this nearly two decades ago when the idea of eLearning first took off. The premise was great—one could learn from his/her own desktop without wasting valuable time in the classroom. Great idea, but it was found by many that much of what an individual learned didn’t come from the training CD, but from the valuable face-to-face exchange between coworkers. Computer-based training was taking away that learning opportunity. Applying this to remote workers, we see that there is true value in those face-to-face connections that cannot be relegated to electronic instant messages.
So, get back to work, Yahoos! According to your CEO, you will more productive. Wait—I am the CEO. Maybe that’s why my employees are asking to work from home.

Employee Engagement Survey

The Impact of Employee Engagement on Customer Satisfaction

I recently had the opportunity of listening in on an excellent HBR Ideacast: The High Cost of Rudeness at Work. Naturally, a company cannot expect to achieve employee engagement if its most-senior leaders follow inappropriate practices of people management. I don’t want to take that path with this blog, though. Rather, I want to take the path that the Ideacast touches on: customers cannot tolerate rudeness or incivility with the least degree of allowance, even when it’s not directed at them.

Many of our clients operate in the fast-paced and demanding customer-service industry. These companies are constantly looking for ways to improve customer satisfaction, often concluding that their “front-line employees are the root of the problem.” Could it be that these customer-facing members of the company comprise only the tip of the iceberg contributing to engagement problems? After all, the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.

The Impact of Employee Engagement on Customer Satisfaction

Before joining the DecisionWise team, I had the opportunity to work in a variety of customer-facing positions. At one point, I was in charge of local training initiatives for an international food-service chain. In this position, I noticed a few trends:

    1. Customers love when companies treat employees well. At the locations I frequented, our team members had been taught to have fun with their jobs—while maintaining an extremely high standard of customer service. If you were to enter one of our locations, finding the crew singing along to a new song on the radio would not be surprising. Many customers would comment on how they enjoyed coming to our stores and how much fun we all seemed to have. By allowing employees to have fun, the company was able to build more rapport with customers—the company was able to engage its employees.
    2. Employees love to be treated well. Employees should be treated well from all directions—from customers and management alike. As some of the commenters on our recent blog on the Fortune 100 Best Companies rightly noted, the best companies show respect to their employees. Like was mentioned above, when customers witness companies demonstrating respect for employees, those companies establish stronger bonds of customer loyalty.
    3. Management attitude affects the bottom-line. Blaming the declining sales figures on frontline employees isn’t fair; most of these employees (save the most proactive, who will quickly leave if they’re being treated poorly) simply inherit behaviors that Management models. Perhaps that’s why Forbes recommends that leaders model the behaviors they seek.

I’ll be the first to admit that I learned the above lessons through a process of trial and error. Looking back, I appreciate the knowledge I gained from that experience in the food-service industry, as it continues to apply to everything I do—both in and out of the office. Respect your customer-facing employees and they will respect you; so will your customers.

Perhaps you don’t work in the food-service industry. How do you think respecting employees affects your company? Do you have an experience when you visited a company and were shocked by how its employees were being treated? Or, more optimistically, have you ever been amazed by the level of respect employees received at a company? Share your stories with us in the comments.

Employee Engagement via Employee-Directed Giving

Corporate charitable giving is a common way for companies to give back to their communities and garner an even more favorable reputation from their followers.  (I’ll ignore the potential tax advantages for the purpose of this blog.)

Does charitable giving only have the ability to earn positive press for organizations?  Can charitable giving have any effect on a company’s employees?  University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics follow an interesting practice to involve employees in the giving season.  Early in the year, UWHC asks its Community Service Award nominees to serve on a committee to select one or more community organizations that would receive that year’s gift on behalf of staff.

“The entire committee took this task very seriously and dedicated significant thought to each decision,” says Thom Weiss, UWHC director of compensation and benefits, and committee facilitator. “The resulting donations will make a difference in the communities served by UW Health and those in which our patients and employees live and work.”

Allowing employees to direct the philanthropic efforts of the company is an excellent way to promote employee engagement, as UWHC has observed.  Employees develop a greater sense of meaning, impact, and connection in their jobs when presented with such opportunities.

  • Meaning—When employees are able to decide how their employers give back to the community, employees value their work as something more than just a means of earning a paycheck; they are able to be engaged in the company’s mission and they feel like their opinions are important to the organization.
  • Impact—When a company listens to the collective voice of its employees and turns their feedback into results, employees feel a sense of impact on the organization, the surrounding community, or the entire global community.  By allowing employees to nominate organizations and causes to be beneficiaries of corporate giving, employees feel that their opinions and actions yield positive external effects and they become further motivated to perform well in their jobs.
  • Connection—When employees collectively nominate organizations to receive charitable gifts from their company, they feel a stronger connection to each other through the cause they are supporting.

We have noticed this even with our own organization.  At DecisionWise, employees are also encouraged to support organizations we are passionate about.  DecisionWise Assessment Office Manager, Katie Nelson, explained her excitement at the opportunity to nominate an organization: “I was so excited DecisionWise was willing to take recommendations for charities from their employees.  I am proud to work for a company that takes such a personal interest in its employees and community.”

How have you seen employee-directed corporate giving impact employee engagement?  Join the discussion in the comments.

DecisionWise Benchmark Study Finds that 34% of Employees in the U.S. Do Not Speak Up Because of Fear of Retribution

Employees can be a source of critical business intelligence, yet a study of over 100,000 US employees reveals that many are afraid to share their voice. These perceptions typically stem from a culture that stifles the free expression of ideas, and from leaders who contribute to or create that culture. Fear of speaking up is extremely detrimental to organizations, often causing an escalation of dissatisfaction among employees leading to absenteeism, non-productive work behaviors, low team identification, and eventually reduced performance and turnover.DecisionWise Fear of Retribution

Fear of Retribution

Further analysis of employee survey data shows several factors leading to a culture where individuals are afraid to share their voice:

  • Constant negative feedback from supervisors and leaders
  • Leaders perceived as a dissenting voice (shooting-down new ideas out of hand, or ignoring feedback)
  • Fear (real or feigned) of demotion or loss of job
  • Raising issues draws undue attention to individuals or groups who make suggestions.
  • Employees perceive that there is no procedural justice (fair use and application of employee feedback)

Every day, employees make decisions about whether to speak up or remain silent. The problem is that, in many organizations, the majority choose the safety of silence. This denies the organization and its leaders valuable information that could be used to make improvements. While there are ways to address the problem of employee voice, it is strongly recommended that all organization leaders receive training and coaching on how to create feedback cultures where ideas and suggestions are shared, employees are listened to, and appropriate responses to feedback are given. In addition, focus groups exploring antecedents and consequences of employee silence should be conducted immediately following the reporting of survey results. Whatever strategy is used to understand employee silence, the end result should be a culture which encourages the free flow of information and feedback resulting in higher employee engagement and organizational effectiveness.
Employee Engagement Survey
Related Post: Which is a Better Motivator: Negative or Positive Emotion?
Related Post: Trust and Employee Engagement

Did You Become More Engaged After Your Last Performance Review?

Every year organizations spend untold hours conducting performance reviews. It’s an expensive process in terms of time and money and, if not done right, can have a negative impact on manager and employee engagement and morale.
Think about your own experience. When you’ve been part of a performance review process, either for yourself or for those who report to you, have you experienced the time spent as producing high value? Did you have the unusual experience of walking away feeling understood, appreciated, capable, supported, motivated, and energized? Or, were you with the majority who have walked away feeling misunderstood, unappreciated, surprised (or blind-sided), disenchanted, disheartened, stressed out, or frustrated?
What if the performance review process could actually improve employee morale and productivity? What if the annual event was something everyone looked forward to because it was the time for celebration of accomplishments and preparation for next year’s success?
For people to give their best effort on behalf of their organizations, they need to be fully engaged at work. The annual performance review process could go a long way toward engaging them. In these conversations, with acknowledgement of past contributions and with a focused view of the future, managers and employees can connect their day-to-day work with the organization’s purpose. They can feel a sense of belonging and that others care about them and their development. They can figure out how to get the tools and resources they need to do their jobs right. They can come away feeling respected, invested in, and important.
The performance review cycle is a perfect time to give and receive feedback that will help the individual, manager, and organization improve. If done with an eye to motivating engagement and future performance, the money and time spent will prove worth the investment.
Related Post: How Much Do Performance Reviews Actually Cost and Are They Really Worth It?
Related Post: Performance Reviews Stink
Related Post: 10 Tips for Conducting 360 Degree Performance Reviews
Related Post: 6 Things to Consider Before Using 360 Feedback for Performance Appraisal
Related Post: My Experience Using 360-Degree Feedback for Performance Appraisals
Related Content: 360 Degree Feedback