What tools can a Manager use?

[Bob Gately]

If we want our employees to be engaged, we need the following.

1. Executives to do their jobs well.
2. Managers to do their jobs well.
3. Supervisors to do their jobs well.
4. Employees to do their jobs well.

Therefore, if we are serious about having engaged employees we must start at the top to ensure that the executives do their jobs well. Oh my, I see a major problem here.

A. Are executives willing to change their own behaviors so that their workforce can become engaged?
B. Are managers willing to change their own behaviors so that their workforce can become engaged?
C. Are supervisors willing to change their own behaviors so that their workforce can become engaged?
D. Are employees willing to change their own behaviors so that they become engaged?

The funny thing is, employees are the most likely to change their behaviors for the good of their employer therefore it is the easiest task to address. However, the most useful task is to get the executives to change their behaviors. Until we change the executives' behaviors we are doomed to undo the good effects of changing the behaviors of our employees.

Is their a tool or a method to help us address items 1 through 4 and items A through D? Yes, it is called hiring for talent.

If anyone wants to learn how to hire for talent, please let me know and I'll post another message.

Bob
bobgately at verizon dot net

[Anja Schuetz]

Hi Bob,

could you elaborate a bit on the reason why employees are the most likely to change their behavior? Aren't supervisors and managers and most executives also "employees"? From your post I understand that there's sort of a ranking - with the change being most likely on the lower ranks, and the higher up the ladder you are, the more unlikely it is that you're willing (or able?) to change your behavior? Is that what you mean?

I'm interested in hearing more about this, since I actually believe that every human being has the same level of "likelihood" to change, no matter their rank. It comes down to awareness, benefits, motivation and responsibility to me. Once a person is aware of how their own behavior affects other people and themselves, and they see sufficient benefit that a change would bring, they will be motivated to take responsibility and change. If there are no benefits, or the benefits don't mean anything to them, there will be no motivation and no change.

So, in my opinion, if an executive is not motivated to change, it might be because he's not aware of anything "being wrong" (e.g. employees being disengaged). Once it's brought to his attention, he might still not know what that means. OK they're not happy, but the work still gets done, doesn't it? He needs to be made aware of the impact of a disengaged workforce (on the future of his organization, his department, himself, his security, basic needs, etc) and of the benefits of an engaged one. Only once he thinks, yes, those benefits are important to me, he'll be willing to change.

Since every individual is different and their rank indeed might add to the differences, isn't it "just" a matter of talking to each rank in a different way, in order to get the same message across? Only when we address each individuals specific needs, we really reach them and create change, I think.

I know this sounds a lot easier than it's done :) and we're probably talking about the same thing here.

Anja

[Bob Gately]

Hello Anja:

"could you elaborate a bit on the reason why employees are the most likely to change their behavior?"

Employees are more likely change their behaviors when told to do so since they know they can be fired. That said, the change may well be temporary and demotivating leading to lower productivity and higher turnover.

"Aren't supervisors and managers and most executives also "employees"?"

Employees report to supervisors who report to managers who report to executives. To say that they are all employees is certainly true but they are not all equal.

"From your post I understand that there's sort of a ranking - with the change being most likely on the lower ranks, and the higher up the ladder you are, the more unlikely it is that you're willing (or able?) to change your behavior? Is that what you mean?"

Supervisors, managers and executives are in their positions for reasons other than their ability to change their own behaviors.

"I'm interested in hearing more about this, since I actually believe that every human being has the same level of "likelihood" to change, no matter their rank."

I disagree since people are not all the same. My statements are not meant to apply to all people in all organizations.

"It comes down to awareness, benefits, motivation and responsibility to me."

I agree, but awareness, benefits, motivation and responsibility may be valued differently by different people.

"Once a person is aware of how their own behavior affects other people and themselves, and they see sufficient benefit that a change would bring, they will be motivated to take responsibility and change."

What if some employees are not intrinsically motivated by their jobs?

"If there are no benefits, or the benefits don't mean anything to them, there will be no motivation and no change."

Even if there are benefits there is more to job success than benefits.

"So, in my opinion, if an executive is not motivated to change, it might be because he's not aware of anything "being wrong" (e.g. employees being disengaged)."

I agree it might be but then again it might not be.

"Once it's brought to his attention, he might still not know what that means."

I agree again.

"OK they're not happy, but the work still gets done, doesn't it?"

I agree, since successful employees do not need to be happy.

"He needs to be made aware of the impact of a disengaged workforce (on the future of his organization, his department, himself, his security, basic needs, etc) and of the benefits of an engaged one. Only once he thinks, yes, those benefits are important to me, he'll be willing to change."

If only it were that easy. Being willing to change is not the same as changing especially when the stresses of the job are excessive.

"Since every individual is different and their rank indeed might add to the differences, isn't it "just" a matter of talking to each rank in a different way, in order to get the same message across?"

The problem is not the message, the problem is that we are all different.

"Only when we address each individuals specific needs, we really reach them and create change, I think."

Supervisors work with their employees for about 40 hours out of a 168 hour week and their employees have been developing their behaviors for 158,000 to 569,000 hours so we can see how little time we have to change other people's behaviors. When we try to change other peoples behaviors we should not be surprised that the amount of job related stress increases.

"I know this sounds a lot easier than it's done :) and we're probably talking about the same thing here."

We are close to agreement.

We should hire people who already behave as we need them to behave and we should not hire people who would need to change their behaviors.

Bob

[Shyam Prajapati]

Is their any way by which we can decide that this person is perfect fit for our organization?
and if posible can u tell me what is Personal Profile Analysis (PPA) which is connected with DICS theory?
Does it help in these matter?

[Bob Gately]

Hello Shyam:

"Is their any way by which we can decide that this person is perfect fit for our organization?"

Perfect no, but we can make better selection decisions by hiring for talent as well as competence.

"and if possible can u tell me what is Personal Profile Analysis (PPA) which is connected with DICS theory? Does it help in these matter?"

A whole person assessment is a more appropriate approach.

Bob.