The age-old problem of disengaged employee is suddenly being discussed everywhere.
𝘑𝘶𝘴𝘵, 𝘪𝘵 𝘮𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘣𝘦 𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴, 𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘯𝘦𝘸: “𝘘𝘶𝘪𝘦𝘵 𝘘𝘶𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨”. Which is where people are not actually quitting their jobs, but rather the idea of going above and beyond. Essentially, of doing nothing beyond just their duties. Of course, it’s important to ask why it may be happening, and whether employee engagement and a great culture are a priority for the organization: If so, and they're not willing to change, these employees have to go. If not, why should they care, and give any more than they absolutely have to, if an organization is allowing it? Because people’s priorities have shifted since COVID, and the days of living to work are gone. Yet, employees will still go above and beyond, but only for leaders who care, and who have created great cultures. But, if the necessary practices are not in place, they will be disengaged, or, even worse, 𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙡𝙮 disengaged. Which is when an employee negatively impacts morale, and creates a toxic culture, by vocalizing any and all levels of discontent. At which point disengagement spreads like a contagion and undermines the culture. Whether disengaged or actively disengaged, it’s critical that managers take action. 𝙎𝙞𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙚𝙣𝙨𝙪𝙧𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙧𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩 𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙤𝙣 𝙞𝙨 𝙞𝙣 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙮 𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙜𝙡𝙚 𝙨𝙚𝙖𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙞𝙢𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚 𝙩𝙤 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙚𝙣𝙜𝙖𝙜𝙚𝙙 𝙚𝙢𝙥𝙡𝙤𝙮𝙚𝙚𝙨. And if nothing happens, every other employee is watching, and wondering why no action is being taken. Probably getting ready to quit for real. Because there is nothing more demoralizing for an organization’s top performers than to see its low performers not be held accountable. Bottom line, it’s important not to get caught-up in the faddish term and remember that “quiet quitting” is simply disengagement. And it needs to be dealt with before it negatively impacts the culture.
0 Comments
People managers have numerous responsibilities, including assigning work, reviewing deliverables, and tracking performance.
Plus providing on-going feedback and support, mentoring and coaching, and genuinely getting to know their employees. Leading to excellent cultures that no-one wants to leave, and where great candidates want to come and work. However, doing this well takes time, including managers needing to reliably devote time to weekly or bi-weekly one-on-ones with every team member. 🚩 So, why do so many organizations not consider their organizational structures, and the maximum number of direct reports their managers have? The optimum number that a single manager should have has long been a topic of discussion. But there is no consensus as to what that perfect number should be. Various academic studies, however, agree that the ideal span of control for any manager should be seven, plus or minus a few. The exact number will differ due to several variables, specific to each organization, including the following: ✅ Manager’s experience managing ✅ Employees’ skills and experience ✅ Complexity of the work ✅ Use of technology Nonetheless, in general, a good rule of thumb is a maximum of six-to-eight direct reports for any one manager. Beyond that, the complexity and demands become too great, even for an experienced and well-trained manager. So, don’t set your managers up for failure by assigning them too many direct reports. 𝘽𝙚𝙘𝙖𝙪𝙨𝙚, 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙤𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙤 𝙂𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙪𝙥, 𝙢𝙖𝙣𝙖𝙜𝙚𝙧𝙨 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙩 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙖𝙩 𝙡𝙚𝙖𝙨𝙩 70% 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙫𝙖𝙧𝙞𝙖𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙞𝙣 𝙚𝙢𝙥𝙡𝙤𝙮𝙚𝙚 𝙚𝙣𝙜𝙖𝙜𝙚𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩. And a situation where Managers themselves won’t be engaged is created. 🚩When that is the case, there is no way that employees will be either. And disengagement and a bad culture are situations to avoid at all costs, unless an organization wants the headache and expense. People managers arguably already have enough on their plates.
With typical day-to-day managerial tasks, coaching and development activities, plus ensuring their employees are engaged. Now, however, it appears they would be wise to be aware of something that has apparently become more common during COVID, especially in the IT industry apparently. When online interviews became more usual, with the rise in remote working. 𝙀𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙧 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙗𝙤𝙜𝙪𝙨 𝙘𝙖𝙣𝙙𝙞𝙙𝙖𝙩𝙚! They interview magnificently, are offered the job, and agree on a start date. So far so good, until the people involved in the interviews meet the now-employee: 🚩 They may look completely different to how they did when they interviewed. 🚩 They offer details about themselves, opposite to what they said while interviewing. 🚩 Almost immediately, it is evident that they are not at all skilled in the work. It turns out, this is a known scam, with companies available for hire, to interview on-line on a candidate’s behalf. 𝙁𝙤𝙧 𝙖 𝙥𝙧𝙞𝙘𝙚, 𝙤𝙛 𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙨𝙚. The employee may be the one on-screen during the interview, but they have someone off-screen feeding them the answers. Or the person interviewing on-screen is not the person that actually shows-up to work. It’s unclear quite what the real motive is – potentially just someone wanting a higher-paying job than what they're actually qualified for. As opposed to wanting to steal information from the employer. 𝙍𝙚𝙜𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙡𝙚𝙨𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙨𝙤𝙣, 𝙞𝙩’𝙨 𝙚𝙭𝙥𝙚𝙣𝙨𝙞𝙫𝙚 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙖 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙥𝙖𝙣𝙮 𝙬𝙤𝙧𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙤 𝙩𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩 𝙩𝙞𝙢𝙚𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙨, 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙩𝙤 𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙪𝙣𝙛𝙖𝙞𝙧 𝙩𝙤 𝙛𝙪𝙡𝙡𝙮 𝙦𝙪𝙖𝙡𝙞𝙛𝙞𝙚𝙙 𝙘𝙖𝙣𝙙𝙞𝙙𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙨 𝙜𝙚𝙣𝙪𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙡𝙮 𝙬𝙖𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙖 𝙟𝙤𝙗. There are steps companies can consider taking to protect themselves (although it’s always best to first consult with an attorney): ✅ Announce up-front during every interview that lying is something that is not tolerated, and that people are terminated for such behavior. ✅ Get each candidate’s permission to take a screenshot at the beginning of the interview, letting them know that pictures are destroyed once someone is hired into the position. ✅ Refusal means the interview ends. If the imposter makes it through the interview process and actually starts work, take immediate action. When questioned, they will probably quit on the spot. If not, and they flatly deny the situation, plus there is no way to prove it is not them who interviewed, focus on skills and performance, and manage them out as quickly as possible. Every other employee, as well as the business, is relying on strong people leaders in a case such as this. The importance of people managers in having engaged employees cannot be over-emphasized.
Because an employee’s direct manager has the most impact on the day-to-day work and environment. So, it stands to reason that with a poor manager in place, retention will be negatively impacted. Because there is still truth in the old adage that people often leave managers and not jobs. 𝙄𝙣 𝙛𝙖𝙘𝙩, 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙤𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙤 𝙂𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙪𝙥, 50% 𝙤𝙛 𝘼𝙢𝙚𝙧𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙣𝙨 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙡𝙚𝙛𝙩 𝙖 𝙟𝙤𝙗 𝙗𝙚𝙘𝙖𝙪𝙨𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙞𝙧 𝙢𝙖𝙣𝙖𝙜𝙚𝙧, 𝙖𝙩 𝙨𝙤𝙢𝙚 𝙥𝙤𝙞𝙣𝙩 𝙞𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙞𝙧 𝙘𝙖𝙧𝙚𝙚𝙧. The responsibility for requiring that its people managers be well trained, falls firmly on an organization’s leadership. ✅ By providing solid training and coaching to its people leaders, then holding them accountable. This, however, unfortunately does not always happen. Leaving many bad behaviors to flourish uncontrollably, none of them attractive or acceptable in a healthy culture: ❌ Micromanagement ❌ Bullying behavior ❌ Unrealistic and demanding ❌ Bad listener ❌ No feedback There are, of course, any number of others. But, according to a Bamboo HR survey of 1,000 US employees, one in particular stood out as the worst, with over 67% in agreement: 💠 𝘼 𝙢𝙖𝙣𝙖𝙜𝙚𝙧 𝙩𝙖𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙘𝙧𝙚𝙙𝙞𝙩 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙤𝙧 𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙚𝙢𝙥𝙡𝙤𝙮𝙚𝙚𝙨’ 𝙬𝙤𝙧𝙠. It is infuriating and trust destroying, and it can also impact an employee’s career, since they potentially miss out on promotions and raises. Because senior leaders are not aware that it is the employee and not the manager, who did the work or had the million-dollar cost-saving idea. 𝙒𝙝𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙧 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙢𝙖𝙣𝙖𝙜𝙚𝙧’𝙨 𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙨𝙤𝙣𝙨, 𝙞𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙪𝙣𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙨𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙗𝙡𝙚 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙨𝙝𝙖𝙢𝙚𝙛𝙪𝙡 𝙗𝙚𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙞𝙤𝙧. Especially if they feel encouraged by a bad workplace culture, as opposed to them not having been correctly trained and coached. (Although surely everyone must be aware that there is no excuse for such behavior!). 🚩 Either way, if it is happening, it is because the culture allows it. Through the existence of a competitive environment, or one where employees do not feel safe speaking-up about the behavior. Leading to high turnover and other expensive problems associated with disengaged employees. In general, life is returning somewhat to normal after COVID.
We’re meeting in restaurants again, going to movie theaters, and otherwise gathering, as we didn’t for quite some time. Work, however, at least for many in the knowledge sector, has undergone a massive shift. And has not returned to how things were pre-COVID. Nor does it show any signs of doing so. Back then, the expectation was that employees live to work as opposed to work to live: 🚩 They needed to work on-site four or five days per week. 🚩 There was pressure to work well beyond 40 hours per week 🚩 They felt they had to be responsive at all hours 🚩 There was no such thing as taking a real ‘get away from it all and switch off’ vacation 𝙉𝙤𝙬, 𝙞𝙩’𝙨 𝙖 𝙣𝙚𝙬 𝙬𝙤𝙧𝙡𝙙, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙝𝙖𝙨 𝙗𝙚𝙚𝙣 𝙖 𝙛𝙪𝙣𝙙𝙖𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙡 𝙨𝙝𝙞𝙛𝙩 𝙞𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙬𝙖𝙮 𝙥𝙚𝙤𝙥𝙡𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙠 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙬𝙤𝙧𝙠. Employees want leaders who genuinely care, meaningful work, and autonomy. All of which are critical to having engaged employees and a great culture. ✅ In addition to a set of core, fundamental practices that genuinely make a difference, as opposed to the ‘nice to haves’, that satisfy but don’t engage. Of course, employees also expect flexibility and at least some degree of hybrid work. (𝙒𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙚𝙭𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙡𝙮 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙡𝙤𝙤𝙠𝙨 𝙡𝙞𝙠𝙚, 𝙞𝙨 𝙪𝙥 𝙩𝙤 𝙚𝙖𝙘𝙝 𝙤𝙧𝙜𝙖𝙣𝙞𝙯𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙩𝙤 𝙙𝙚𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙢𝙞𝙣𝙚, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙢𝙖𝙮 𝙗𝙚 𝙖 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙘𝙚𝙨𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙧𝙞𝙖𝙡 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙤𝙧, 𝙙𝙚𝙥𝙚𝙣𝙙𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙤𝙣 𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙞𝙛𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙮 𝙬𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙥𝙖𝙣𝙮 𝙙𝙤𝙚𝙨, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙝𝙤𝙬 𝙞𝙩 𝙙𝙤𝙚𝙨 𝙞𝙩). While not all companies are willing to change, some have, and those are the organizations where employees are going to stay, and candidates are going to apply. Because, today, bottom line, employees are in the driver’s seat and are not willing to return to how things were before COVID. 💠 And companies attempting to return to that pre-COVID work world, acting as though the employer is still the one in charge, will lose. Since the employee of old no longer exists and continuing to lament this fact and the fruitless task of finding them, is like searching for the proverbial needle in a haystack. Which, as a result, is holding the business back. Leadership can be extremely rewarding.
But it can also be complex and difficult. With projects, and meetings and budgets and people situations to manage. 𝘼𝙣𝙙 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙖𝙡𝙬𝙖𝙮𝙨 𝙗𝙚𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙬𝙖𝙩𝙘𝙝𝙚𝙙, 𝙗𝙮 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙮 𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙜𝙡𝙚 𝙙𝙞𝙧𝙚𝙘𝙩 𝙧𝙚𝙥𝙤𝙧𝙩. Or, where the CEO is concerned, by every single employee. This may come as a surprise to new leaders. Therefore, it’s important to be aware that everything is being scrutinized. Every action, reaction, word choice, tone of voice and body language, no matter how minor: 🚩 Whether they passed an employee in the corridor and didn’t say hello. 🚩 Whether they take vacation or not 🚩 Whether they genuinely support balance between work and home. 🚩Whether they do what they say and consistently, or if they make exceptions. Everything is evaluated for what it might mean to the person on the receiving end. It is part of leading, in general, and even more so during periods of change. 𝙎𝙪𝙘𝙝 𝙖𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙘𝙪𝙡𝙩𝙪𝙧𝙚 𝙨𝙝𝙞𝙛𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙤𝙘𝙘𝙪𝙧𝙨, 𝙬𝙝𝙚𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙙𝙚𝙘𝙞𝙨𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙞𝙨 𝙢𝙖𝙙𝙚 𝙩𝙤 𝙚𝙣𝙨𝙪𝙧𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙘𝙤𝙧𝙚, 𝙛𝙪𝙣𝙙𝙖𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙡 𝙥𝙧𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙚𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙜𝙚𝙣𝙪𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙡𝙮 𝙚𝙣𝙜𝙖𝙜𝙚 𝙚𝙢𝙥𝙡𝙤𝙮𝙚𝙚𝙨 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙞𝙣 𝙥𝙡𝙖𝙘𝙚. The outcome of which is some employees deciding to leave, while others will need be asked to do so. Because change can be difficult, and not everyone will agree with the new way of doing business. Even one exception to doing this, regardless of the role of the person being asked to move on, will result in a loss of trust and respect. 💠 And, without trust, there can be no engagement and, hence, no positive change to the culture. But CEOs who show employees that they can be trusted, by always following through on what they say they will do, will have the ability to engage employees and build a strong culture. |
AuthorNia is passionate about engaging employees and cultivating compassionate cultures, a win-win for both employers and employees. Archives
January 2023
Categories |