Can engagement and cost control co-exist?

[Jennifer Schulte]

Like many of you, I'm in an organization where cost pressure is the current focus of the day. I see many leaders who avoid sharing information until they know the whole answer (which is generally bad news about projects, funding or even jobs). But I'd like to convince them that sharing the information they do know, when they know it, will build engagement and actually help people cope with whatever the answer becomes. We know that engaged employees cope with change and stress in a much better way than the disengaged, who don't trust their best interest is at the heart of business decisions. I think we are fostering disengagement by withholding not only the decisions we make in an effort to control costs, but also by not sharing the 'why' so people have a bigger view of their role. We are all adults after all!

Any other thoughts on the seemingly impossible task of increasing engagement while focusing on decreasing costs?

[Jennifer Schulte]

Thanks for the replies, both to Jennifer and Zane (plus use of bold & italics ... it works!). I will definitely look into the book Jennifer recommended as I'm always looking for a new book with a few key insights to "steal" from.

I also like your point Zane about "ideas that didn't" in particular - I think all to often, we do not pause to admit or learn from mistakes of changes we've made in the past. I hear employees disengagingly comment regularly saying "yeah, this will just be like the (insert last big change initiative here) that didn't work either. If we wait, this too shall pass." I think the more we can describe why the business is making decisions - and make sure our employees can articulate those reasons - the 'belief' part might actually follow.

Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts! This has been helpful.

[Paul M. Mastrangelo]

Jennifer,

At the risk of being branded a heretic, I don't think one needs to assume that increasing engagement will increase organizational performance (e.g., cost efficiency). Instead, I would make the assumption that if the leaders were to collaborate with employees to reduce costs, then the organization would become more efficient at the same time that employees would become more engaged. Engaging the employees is a means, but not the end. I assure you that the employees at your company see many ways to decrease costs, and these inefficiencies are probably frustration points for the employees ("Look how they waste money!"). Remove these frustrations via collaboration, and everyone wins: business performance and engagement will improve.

Paul

[Gary Irland]

I will also take a risk, but just of being self serving.
In support of what Paul is addressing, engagement needs to be "just how we get things done" not a special extra activity. I've represented this as a big circle for the organization and a bump on the outside that represents the engagement effort. If you can remove the bump and still deliver products or services then it was not an "authentic" effort to engage employees. If the bump is moved to the inside of the circle, and you then try and remove it, you will leave a hole in "how things get done" and it will show up in the delivery (or lack of) of your product.
I'd like some feedback on how the people in this forum view the suggestion system as a tool for engagement. In particular the one I've spoken about in other posts.
Is IdeasCount as viable a product/service as I think it is? (It's at www.IdeasCount.com)
Please forgive me if this is verging on a sales effort.
Thanks, Gary

[Rob Fox]

Hi,

What happens when there are no more cost savings to save?

Best,

R
www.engagingideas.com

[Gary Irland]

Then it might be: "We have done so much with so little for so long that we are now able to do anything with nothing"
Gary
'

[Rob Fox]

Gary,

Excellent! The ultimate capitalist dream!

I guess what I am actually trying to say is that cost saving is by definition an incremental game.

Thanks!

[Ian Buckingham]

My how the world has changed since you started this discussion Jennifer. Proves how powerful this forum can be at tracking changes in mood and the nature of reflections/advice over time.
It's a fairly frightening time for people who rely on discretionary spend (probably all of us). Of course, culling initiatives designed to improve the culture and ultimately impact the bottom line is the last thing the holders of the purse strings should do. But I think we know the reality.
It places much greater emphasis on internal and external change agents to prove the value of what they do and make the business case for engagement as a change driver. Easier said than done as they don't always get the opportunity.
One word, however, is ringing in my ears - Involvement! Probably THE key driver of engagement is the degree to which people are involved - irrespective of subject matter.
The good news is that it's free and relatively easy to do. Not so easy from behind a locked door inside an ivory tower though - a lesson I hope the decision makers are waking up to!

[Jennifer Schulte]

Thank you for the recent replies! I've been working with a few senior leaders on the concept of involvement - internally we brand it as "Winning with Associates" and the notion is that no matter what the business objective (cost reduction, sales growth, increased market share, manufacturing efficiency .... etc), your associates who do the work have great ideas about how to do it better. So ask them! Involving them does 2 powerful things, it gives new perspective on solving the issues and it also improves engagement as a side-effect or an outcome, which is how engagement becomes sustainable. I agree that if we talk about engagement as an extra add-on thing to do (which we have positioned it in the past this way), it stays there on the perimeter of my "real work" vs. being how my real work gets done.

Thank you for the provoking comments! Now back to my report on reducing overhead in 2009 .... (smile)

[Paul M. Mastrangelo]

All,

I agree that involvement is a key component of engagement as well as creating buy-in for any planned change effort. Gathering suggestions and volunteers, however, does not create a system. A peer-nominated team, selected to represent cross-sections of the organization (relevant to the business problem being addressed), will create a system of involvement, social pressure to support efforts, and feedback loops outside of formal authority. The group coordinates action plans that address gaps the organization wants to close, but the employees who contribute nominations continue to be a part of the system. As a result, the level of involvement (and therefore engagement) is far greater and the ideas for improvement are far better than if contributions were made from (even a large group of) individuals. P

[Ian Buckingham]

I don't recall saying that involvement was about gathering suggestions or that it created a system Paul. Undoubtedly both the process (systemic) and behavioural/cultural elements need to be addressed and I do agree with the notion that innovation is largely about disciplined thinking. My point, however, focused on the behavioural aspects and that involvement is essentially free and instantly achievable and that by giving people the respect they deserve by involving them may well lead to them understanding the need for more systemic thinking and, most importantly, having the energy and motivation to become self managing in that regard. Try and enforce the reverse approach and the best you'll achieve will be short term gains through conscription and compliance.

[Rob Fox]

Hi Paul and Ian,

Paul,

You appear to be suggesting a route to involvement/ engagement via adoption of a rigorous process orientated, controlled and co-ordinated approach; presumably sponsored by leadership, within clear guidelines and timescales? Have I para-phrased you correctly?

Best,

Rob.

[Susan Robinson]

Jennifer,
This is an incredibly valuable discussion. Thanks for starting it.
Susan Robinson