Minding Gaps

{Numbers} Workers Trust Managers More Than Executives

 

Numbers, a twice-monthly feature, regularly presents business data that is noteworthy, puzzling, alarming, widely misunderstood or misinterpreted, or otherwise deserving of explanation, comment, or clarification. We accompany it with thought-provoking questions or commentary for reflection and discussion. It appears on the first and third Monday of each month.

Since its inception two years ago, Numbers has presented data on a wide variety of issues: employee engagement, organizational culture, trust in business, information overload, strategic communication, CEO compensation, layoffs, job satisfaction, Internet usage, nonverbal communication, fear in the workplace, and many other variables.

You can read any or all of those posts (and hundreds of other short essays, as well) whenever you wish, just by scrolling through the archives. For a particular subject, use the search button atop the right column.

by Thomas J. Lee

Corporate employees trust their own managers more than they trust their company's senior executives, according to a survey of more than 7,000 employees at all levels of American companies.

Only 20 percent of people strongly trust the top management of their organization. Some 36 percent moderately trust their top management, while the remaining 44 percent range from not trusting to strongly distrusting their top management.

The same study, conducted by Leadership IQ, found that people were more trusting of their direct boss than top management.

It concluded that 34 percent of people strongly trust their direct boss, 35 percent moderately trust their direct boss, while the remaining 31 percent range from not trusting to strongly distrusting their direct boss.

As you reflect on these numbers, ask yourself:

• What do you think can account for the difference?
• In your company, is the CEO's communication too polished, too artificial?
• Does your company promise more than it delivers to employees?
• Have company policies trampled over high-minded corporate values?
• What can companies do to restore trust? 

 

Coming on Wednesday

How Leaders Must Manage Themselves

(Third of Four Parts)

 

©  Copyright 2011    Thomas J. Lee    All rights reserved.

{Numbers} Who Works the Longest Hours?

 

Numbers, a twice-monthly feature, regularly presents business data that is noteworthy, puzzling, alarming, widely misunderstood or misinterpreted, or otherwise deserving of explanation, comment, or clarification. We accompany it with thought-provoking questions or commentary for reflection and discussion. It appears on the first and third Monday of each month.

Since its inception two years ago, Numbers has presented data on a wide variety of issues: employee engagement, organizational culture, trust in business, information overload, strategic communication, CEO compensation, layoffs, job satisfaction, Internet usage, nonverbal communication, fear in the workplace, and many other variables.

You can read any or all of those posts (and hundreds of other short essays, as well) whenever you wish, just by scrolling through the archives. For a particular subject, use the search button atop the right column.

by Thomas J. Lee

Who works the most?

You may be surprised by the answer.

If you assume it is the hourly laborer who racks up the most hours, you would be wrong.

According to Gallup, almost half of self-employed Americans (49 percent) work more than 44 hours a week, compared with only 38 percent of Americans who work for companies or the government and 30 percent of those who work for non-profit associations and institutions.

But across all those categories, it is people who earn more than $75,000 a year and people with advanced degrees who work the most. Some 53 percent of each group report that they work more than 44 hours a week.

 

Coming on Wednesday

Ten Tactics and Tips for Better PowerPoint Presentations

 

©  Copyright 2011    Thomas J. Lee    All rights reserved.

{Numbers} Effective Managers Repeat Themselves

 

Numbers, a twice-monthly feature, regularly presents business data that is noteworthy, puzzling, alarming, widely misunderstood or misinterpreted, or otherwise deserving of explanation, comment, or clarification. We accompany it with thought-provoking questions or commentary for reflection and discussion. It appears on the first and third Monday of each month.

Since its inception two years ago, Numbers has presented data on a wide variety of issues: employee engagement, organizational culture, trust in business, information overload, strategic communication, CEO compensation, layoffs, job satisfaction, Internet usage, nonverbal communication, fear in the workplace, and many other variables.

You can read any or all of those posts (and hundreds of other short essays, as well) whenever you wish, just by scrolling through the archives. For a particular subject, use the search button atop the right column.

by Thomas J. Lee

Ever since the pioneering work of Frederick Winslow Taylor a century ago, managers have been trying to do more with less. Efficiency is good.

For many managers, that is certainly true of communication. They want to say something once and be done with it. Especially in a time when we are all assaulted daily by thousands of messages—emails, advertising, announcements, complaints, questions, Google searches, conversations, requests for this and that, the news—brevity is the soul of clarity as well as wit.

There's just one nagging issue: Does it work? Can we truly say something only once to someone and seriously expect to communicate well?

The answer isn't so simple.

In some circumstances it can work. Probably all of us remember hearing some particularly pleasant or hurtful words on the job: "We want you to start work next Monday" or "You have to go to Fresno again" or "We won the Smith account" or "Everyone has to take a pay cut."

On the other hand, when I am troubleshooting poor communication, one-off instructions often emerge as a problem. For routine information, saying something once is tantamount to never saying it at all. People don't remember hearing things that they were told just last week.

Now comes intriguing new research on the importance of redundant communication. A study reported in the current (May 2011) issue of Harvard Business Review found that managers who deliberately repeat themselves are significantly more effective than managers who don't. The key word there is deliberately.

The researchers noticed that the effective managers were building redundancy into their communication plans. Even before they communicated the news the first time, they were planning how to do it a second and even a third time.

The pattern was especially pronounced among managers without formal authority. These days, that includes more managers than ever before, as companies form ad hoc project teams for special assignments and limited periods of time.

The study of six companies shows that 21 percent of managers without formal authority routinely sent redundant messages—for example, following up a face-to-face meeting or a telephone conversation with an email—while only 12 percent of managers with formal power did likewise, according to Paul Leonardi of Northwestern University and Tsedal Neeley of Harvard Business School.

The powerless managers got things done faster and with fewer hiccups, presumably as a result of the redundant messaging, the professors said. Meanwhile, managers with official power tend to rely on their authority. They apparently assumed that employees would just follow their directions, and they believed that communicating once was enough.

"We’re so bred to believe that clarity is the key to being a better communicator," said Leonardi. "The literature says pick the best medium for the [message], and anything else is wasteful. This research suggests that’s not true. You need to use multiple media.

"It’s not necessarily just about clarity. It’s about making your presence felt. Employees are getting pulled in many directions and reporting to lots of people and getting tons of communications. So how do you keep your issues top of mind? Redundancy is a way to do that."

For many of you, this will confirm your lingering suspicion and our intuition. You know from your personal lives the importance of repetition. After all, how many of us are content to hear our spouses say "I love you" only once?

If there is anything I have learned over the years, it is that people are not robots, and that business is all about people. As advertisers and politicians seem to have known all along, managers should repeat themselves. I say:  Managers should repeat themselves. I say . . .

 

Coming on Wednesday

Rogue Communication

 

©  Copyright 2011    Thomas J. Lee    All rights reserved.

Counterfeit Currency of Leadership

by Thomas J. Lee

Just as money is the medium of exchange for any transaction, so communication is the medium of exchange for any transformation in business.

Apart from barter, no transaction can take place without money. Apart from fiat, no transformation can take place without communication.

Moreover, just as the money that enables a transaction must be credible and legitimate, so the communication that enables transformation must be credible and legitimate.

In either case, anything that is not is counterfeit.

For leaders, counterfeit currency in communication buys only alienation, denial, cynicism, and resistance. That's a bad deal at any price.

 

Coming on Friday

Precisely What Is Employee Engagement?

 ©  Copyright 2011    Thomas J. Lee    All rights reserved.

{Numbers} Silicon Valley CEOs Work in Glass Houses

 

Numbers, a twice-monthly feature, regularly presents business data that is noteworthy, puzzling, alarming, widely misunderstood or misinterpreted, or otherwise deserving of explanation, comment, or clarification. We accompany it with thought-provoking questions or commentary for reflection and discussion. It appears on the first and third Monday of each month.

Since its inception two years ago, Numbers has presented data on a wide variety of issues: employee engagement, organizational culture, trust in business, information overload, strategic communication, CEO compensation, layoffs, job satisfaction, Internet usage, nonverbal communication, fear in the workplace, and many other variables.

You can read any or all of those posts (and hundreds of other short essays, as well) whenever you wish, just by scrolling through the archives. For a particular subject, use the search button atop the right column.

by Thomas J. Lee

Glassdoor.com compiles data on compensation, cultures, and chief executives at companies around the world. Anyone can access the data for almost any company of significant size.

Oddly, the employee approval ratings for CEOs of high-tech companies are the only ones that regularly make news. That creates public accountability for one industry. However, it leaves employees, investors, and customers of companies in other industries to do their own research. You can do it, but it's laborious.

In the most recent period, outgoing Google CEO Eric Schmidt ranks highest among his Silicon Valley peers: 96 percent of Google employees approved of his performance as chief executive. Apple CEO Steve Jobs, on medical leave, is right up there, too, at 95 percent.

In contrast, Steve Ballmer at Microsoft came in at only 40 percent, a decrease of six points from his approval one year earlier.

Yahoo's Carol Bartz saw her approval drop the most, from 77 percent to just 50 percent. John Donahoe of eBay improved the most, from 24 percent a year ago to 46 percent now.

A few questions to reflect upon:

• How would well-publicized employee approval ratings of leaders in your company affect their leadership?
• Have you checked your CEO's approval rating on glassdoor.com?
• Should leaders make decisions in fear or favor of employee approval? 

 

Coming on Wednesday

Counterfeit Currency of Leadership

 

©  Copyright 2011    Thomas J. Lee    All rights reserved.

{Numbers} A Quantitative Look at Collaboration and Teamwork

 

Numbers, a twice-monthly feature, regularly presents business data that is noteworthy, puzzling, alarming, widely misunderstood or misinterpreted, or otherwise deserving of explanation, comment, or clarification. We accompany it with thought-provoking questions or commentary for reflection and discussion. It appears on the first and third Monday of each month.

Since its inception in mid-2009, Numbers has presented data on a wide variety of issues: employee engagement, organizational culture, trust in business, information overload, strategic communication, CEO compensation, layoffs, job satisfaction, Internet usage, nonverbal communication, and fear in the workplace, among others.

You can read any or all of those posts (and hundreds of other short essays, as well) whenever you wish, just by scrolling through the archives. For a particular subject, use the search button atop the right column.

 

by Thomas J. Lee

Many companies use the term "individual contributor" to refer to employees who do something other than manage or supervise the work of others. Over the last ten or fifteen years, however, the term has become something of an oxymoron, or the next closest thing.

According to research by Kroll Inc. and Steelcase, the office furniture maker, 82 percent of knowledge workers partner with their colleagues, almost half of them constantly.

The ideal size of a team is three persons. Only 9 percent prefer groups of two and 27 percent prefer groups of four or more, while 54 percent prefer groups of three.

An interesting gender-based and age-based dynamic surfaces. Women more than men (51 percent to 40 percent), and younger people more than older people, enjoy working in groups to learn from others. Men more than women (36 percent to 25 percent), and older people more than younger people, prefer working in groups to complete tasks.

 

Coming on Wednesday

Golf and Other Bad Metaphors for Business

 

©  Copyright 2011    Thomas J. Lee    All rights reserved.

{Numbers} The Tyranny of Meetings

 

Numbers, a twice-monthly feature, regularly presents business data that is noteworthy, puzzling, alarming, widely misunderstood or misinterpreted, or otherwise deserving of explanation, comment, or clarification. We accompany it with thought-provoking questions or commentary for reflection and discussion. Formerly known as By the Numbers, it appears on the first and third Monday of each month.

Since its inception in mid-2009, Numbers has presented data on a wide variety of issues: employee engagement, organizational culture, trust in business, information overload, strategic communication, CEO compensation, layoffs, job satisfaction, Internet usage, nonverbal communication, and fear in the workplace, among others.

You can read any or all of those posts (and hundreds of other short essays, as well) whenever you wish, just by scrolling through the archives. For a particular subject, use the search button atop the right column.

 

 

by Thomas J. Lee

The popular humor columnist Dave Barry once remarked that if you could summarize in a single word the reason civilization hasn't made more progress, the single word would be meetings.

Probably almost everyone with a job would agree. Many people spend much or even most of their day in meetings, and few meetings have the satisfying air of getting something, anything, done.

In fact, Bain & Company research has found that two out of every three meetings end before participants can make important decisions, and 85 percent of business executives say they are dissatified with the efficiency and effectiveness of meetings in their organizations.

I like to remind myself that some of the most important things in history happened in meetings: writing the Magna Carta, signing of the Declaration of Independence, and adopting the Bill of Rights. Granted, that's only three meetings in a thousand years, but it's a start.

 

Coming Wednesday

A Closer Look at Trust

 

©  Copyright 2011    Thomas J. Lee    All rights reserved.

{Numbers} Shareholder Return Rises With Employee Engagement

 

Numbers, a twice-monthly feature, regularly presents business data that is noteworthy, puzzling, alarming, widely misunderstood or misinterpreted, or otherwise deserving of explanation, comment, or clarification. We accompany it with thought-provoking questions or commentary for reflection and discussion. Formerly known as By the Numbers, it appears on the first and third Monday of each month.

Since its inception in mid-2009, Numbers has presented data on a wide variety of issues: employee engagement, organizational culture, trust in business, information overload, strategic communication, CEO compensation, layoffs, job satisfaction, Internet usage, the productivity of meetings, nonverbal communication, and fear in the workplace, among others.

You can read any or all of those posts (and hundreds of other short essays, as well) whenever you wish, just by scrolling through the archives. For a particular subject, use the search button atop the right column.

 

by Thomas J. Lee

The financial value of employee engagement has long been obvious to some managers, particularly those who appreciate the importance of psychological anchors such as pride, belonging, and meaning on both the quality and the quantity of work, and those who understand the systematic role of communication in creating engagement.

But to managers who focus first and last on mechanical drivers of performance, such as unmistakable authority and the certainty of accountability, the financial metrics of engagement are not so plain to see. To them, engagement has largely seemed a wasteful annoyance.

Now we have new data to prove the business case for high employee engagement. It turns out to go beyond the bottom line and straight to the curve on the shareholder return graph.

New research by Hewitt Associates, which was recently acquired by Aon Consulting, has found that companies with relatively high levels of employee engagement (at least 65 percent) outperform the total stock market. They posted shareholder returns 19 percent higher than the average in 2009, the most recent year for which comparisons are available.

Meanwhile, companies with very low engagement (less than 40 percent) underperformed the total stock market. They posted returns 44 percent lower than the average for the same period.

That's a total difference of 63 percentage points attributable to employee engagement, which, as we know from other reputable studies, is driven by nothing so much as clear, compelling, credible, collaborative communication.

If this doesn't make the business case for a strategic process of internal communication in support of engaging employees, nothing will. After all, how many other processes or improvements can even come close?

 

Coming Wednesday

Just What, and Who, Is a Communicator?

 

(c) Copyright 2011    Thomas J. Lee    All rights reserved.

{Numbers} The Mysterious Case of the Shrinking Cublicle

 

Numbers, a twice-monthly feature, regularly presents business data that is noteworthy, puzzling, alarming, widely misunderstood or misinterpreted, or otherwise deserving of explanation, comment, or clarification. We accompany it with thought-provoking questions or commentary for reflection and discussion. Formerly known as By the Numbers, it appears on the first and third Monday of each month.

Since its inception in mid-2009, Numbers has presented data on a wide variety of issues: employee engagement, organizational culture, trust in business, information overload, strategic communication, CEO compensation, layoffs, job satisfaction, Internet usage, the productivity of meetings, nonverbal communication, and fear in the workplace, among others.

You can read any or all of those posts (and hundreds of other short essays, as well) whenever you wish, just by scrolling through the archives. For a particular subject, use the search button atop the right column.

 

by Thomas J. Lee

At this very moment, many of you are sitting in a cubicle not unlike those that Scott Adams draws in Dilbert, and if your company is like many others, the cubicle is smaller today than it was a year or two ago.

According to the Chicago Tribune, the one-two punch of recession and technology has led companies to shrink the size of cubicles quite considerably. It is a long-term trend that has picked up speed lately.

The International Facility Management Association reports that, in 1994, office workers had an average work space of 90 square feet. By last year, the average was just 75 square feet. Space for senior managers shrunk, too, from 115 square feet in 1994 to 96 square feet in 2010.

At one Silicon Valley-based chipmaker, the shrinkage is even more dramatic. The standard cubicle at Intel used to be 72 square feet. Now it is now just 48 square feet. 

Moreover, owing to the profliferation of telecommuting and mobile technology, some knowledge workers no longer even have permanent work spaces. When they need a space, they reserve it by the day. More often than not, they are working off-site.

"Everyone used to get a cube, but that doesn't work for the way people actually do their work today," said Neil Tunmore, director of corporate services at Intel, who spearheaded a corporate redesign that began in 2007.

To be sure, some companies are bucking the trend, and they seem to be winning the talent war. For two years running, Fortune magazine has named North Carolina-based SAS, a business intelligence software company, the No. 1 place to work. SAS officials say they give almost all their employees private offices, which they believe contribute to their success.

"We do value employees not just as a commodity but as an asset," Jim Davis, senior marketing officer of the company, said.

 

Wednesday: Nothing to Lose, Everything to Lose

 

(c) Copyright 2011   Arceil Leadership Ltd.   All rights reserved.

{Numbers} U.S. Companies Continue Improvement on Safety

 

Numbers, a twice-monthly feature, regularly presents business data that is noteworthy, puzzling, alarming, widely misunderstood or misinterpreted, or otherwise deserving of explanation, comment, or clarification. We accompany it with thought-provoking questions or commentary for reflection and discussion.  Formerly known as By the Numbers, it appears on the first and third Monday of each month.

Since its inception in mid-2009, Numbers has presented data on a wide variety of issues: employee engagement, organizational culture, trust in business, information overload, strategic communication, CEO compensation, layoffs, job satisfaction, Internet usage, the productivity of meetings, nonverbal communication, and fear in the workplace, among others.

You can read any or all of those posts (and hundreds of other short essays, as well) whenever you wish, just by scrolling through the archives. For a particular subject, use the search button atop the right column.

 

by Thomas J. Lee

Work-related injuries, both fatal and nonfatal, continued a long decline in the United States in 2009, the most-recent year for which statistics are available.

According to preliminary data, there were 3.6 cases of work-related nonfatal injury or illness per 100 full-time workers in the United States in 2009. That represents a 7 percent decrease from 3.9 cases in 2008, and a 14 percent decrease from 4.2 cases in 2007.

Also by a preliminary tally, there were 3.3 work-related fatalities per 100,000 full-time workers in 2009. That represents a 10 percent decrease from 2008, when the comparable figure was 3.7, and a 17 percent decrease from 2007 when it was 4.0. Most dramatically, it is a 41 percent improvement from 1994, when the comparable figure stood at 5.6.

Still, there were 4,340 workplace fatalities in the United States in 2009. While that figure also reflects the significant improvement over time, each fatality leaves a gaping hole in the lives of people. In many cases, a family loses a breadwinner, a spouse loses a best friend, and children lose a role model. No one can rest until the figure is zero.

 You can obtain complete data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics here.

As you reflect on this data, explore the implications on workplace safety from trends in the workplace that you have observed or experienced, including budgetary constraints, job eliminations, and multitasking on smart phones and personal data devices. Also, to what extent do you believe the decrease is a function of the recession, and do you expect an increase in the figure as the economy recovers?

  

(c) Copyright 2011   Arceil Leadership Ltd.   All rights reserved.

By the Numbers: Open and Honest Communication

 

 

 

by Thomas J. Lee

Most companies of any considerable size survey their employees from time to time on a raft of issues relating to satisfaction, morale, commitment, and engagement. The questions on these surveys vary considerably, but a few questions are typically devoted to the frequency and quality of managerial communication.

(Better companies go so far as to field annual communication audits. If the surveys are well-constructed and well-interpreted and acted upon, so much the better.)

One survey question in particular always interests me. It has to do with the candor and credibility of communication. Often it is phrased as the degree of "open and honest" communication. (Ideally, it should be two questions, but that is another matter for another day.) The results say a lot about the organization and its future.

The only acceptable score on this kind of question is (a) a score that is better than the comparable score of your most recent previous surveys, and (b) a score reflecting approval at or above 85 or even 90 percent of all cohorts, most especially ground-level and customer-facing employees.

If you think 85 or 90 percent is too ambitious a target, I would remind you that it is still shy of three sigma. No self-respecting manufacturing company tolerates a defect rate of less than six sigma. 

On questions of this nature, reference to an industry norm is irrelevant and perhaps even counterproductive. Let's say the external norm is 72 percent, and your score is 75 percent. You may be feeling heady, having beaten the norm by 3 percentage points, but you must realize that one of every four employees regards your communication as something less than acceptable.

Having said that, you should be less concerned about validating your management team's efforts than about assessing your present situation and mapping an approach to improving it. So even if your scores are improving from survey to survey, you should still use the data to determine how you might improve further. Of course, if your scores are deteriorating, consider it a five-alarm alert. You need to get busy, fast.

Now, here are some discussion points for you:

• Has your organization conducted such a survey recently?
• Did you even ask about communication?
• Did you specifically inquire about candor and credibility?
• Did you also inquire about clarity? Coherence? Civility?
• Did you collect data by grade level? What were the results?
• How did they compare with previous surveys?
• What are you doing in response?

 

By the Numbers is a twice-monthly feature presenting business data that is noteworthy, puzzling, alarming, widely misunderstood or misinterpreted, or otherwise deserving of explanation, comment, or clarification. We accompany it with thought-provoking questions or commentary for reflection and discussion. By the Numbers appears on the first and third Monday of each month.

Since its inception in mid-2009, By the Numbers has presented data on a wide variety of issues: employee engagement, organizational culture, trust in business, information overload, strategic communication, CEO compensation, layoffs, job satisfaction, Internet usage, the productivity of meetings, nonverbal communication, and fear in the workplace, among others.

You can read any or all of those posts (and hundreds of other short essays, as well) whenever you wish, just by scrolling through the archives. For a particular subject, use the search button atop the right column.

 

(c) Copyright 2011   Arceil Leadership Ltd.   All rights reserved.

What Is Your Organization's Communication Culture?

 

(First in a Series.)

by Thomas J. Lee 

Just about everyone takes corporate culture for granted. It is a well-established concept. No one disputes that their company has a culture, for better or worse.

But you may be surprised to learn that, less than a generation ago, corporate culture was unheard of. Terrence Deal and Allan Kennedy introduced the term in their trailblazing 1982 book, Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life.

The concept was initially controversial. Companies resisted the notion they were about anything more than their numbers. Since then, of course, many companies have come to compete on culture as much as on goods and services. You see it whenever a company touts its ranking on the Best Places to Work list.

Sociologists define culture as the totality of attitudes, norms, and behaviors that distinguish one group of people from another. In business, culture is commonly regarded as "the way we do things around here."

There are profound cultural differences between Google and Microsoft, for example. Similarly, there are significant cultural differences between Toyota and General Motors, between Southwest Airlines and Delta Air Lines, between Nordstrom and Macy's, and between Bank of America and Chase Bank. The list could go on.

Just as cultures vary from company to company, so do cultures within a single company. Each corporate culture consists of many smaller subcultures. The closer you examine subcultures, the more variability you see. Some experts believe there is more cultural variability within companies than among them.

For example, in any one company, you may notice cultural differences between headquarters personnel and field representatives, between the engineering geeks and the marketing mavens, between salaried staff and hourly workers, between grizzled veterans and young turks, between teams supporting a growth product and teams supporting a cash cow, between the day shift and the night shift, between manufacturing and sales, between legacies of an acquired company and legacies of the acquiring company, and so forth.

All these fault lines reflect the priorities and sensitivities of various perspectives, owing to various circumstances, backgrounds, and values of people.

Another kind of subculture, equally important, gets even less attention. It reflects particular processes, such as quality or planning. Of special importance to me, not surprisingly, is the culture around communication of business issues and information.

Think about it. All the variables around communication are powerful determinants of culture and subculture. In some key respects, communication is culture. And the culture of communication is critical to everything.

By culture of communication, I mean the tendency of people throughout a company to share information, ideas, and their intuition on business matters in a particular way. It is less about the flow of official information and more about the countless decentralized eddies of information converging and diverging throughout a company. Here it's important to remember that communication is more than just words, numbers, pictures, and images; it is anything that conveys information or creates meaning for people, and it is often unintentional, implicit, and unmanaged.

Now corporate cultures and subcultures of any sort are very, very powerful. They are tantamount to being "the judge, jury, and jailer" of strategy. In other words, whenever companies adopt a new strategy or policy or initiative or program, their culture can make it or break it.

Any strategy (or any policy or initiative or program) depends on compatibility with the culture for survival and growth. If the strategy and the culture are compatible, then the strategy can survive (not that it necessarily will, just that it can). If they aren't compatible, then all bets are off, and the strategy is probably doomed.

That's especially true of the culture of communication. Because communication is the very energy of leadership, the culture of communication determines to a large extent whether leaders will be able to lead.

Ideally, any company's culture of communication has as its hallmarks eight descriptors that just coincidentally begin with the same letter: clear, credible, compelling (or cogent), constructive, continuous, collaborative, civil, and concise. That's a tall order, but it's mightily important to a company's success.

You can easily think of examples, for better and for worse. A worst-case scenario might involve the proverbial Mushroom Theory, keeping employees in the dark and feeding them—well, you get the idea. A best-case scenario would embrace employees as intellectual partners in the enterprise, whose thinking is integral to the company's success. You can easily see just how critical communication is to performance.

On Friday, I will explore the eight attributes of a healthy culture of communication. Then over the next couple of weeks, I will post some diagnostic questions for each attribute that a company's leadership should ask itself to recognize and improve its communication culture.

 

We would be happy to help your organization assess and improve

its culture of communication. Just call us at +1-847-247-2241

 or write to us at info@arceil.com.

 

 

(c) 2010 Arceil Leadership Ltd. All rights reserved.

 Technorati Claim Code WUU227Z6455M

Management Has a Rose-Colored View of Communication

 

 

 By the Numbers                                               

 

By Thomas J. Lee

Ask a typical executive how well his or her company communicates important business information to employees, and you will very likely hear a song of praise: Quite well, thank you for asking.

You shouldn't settle for such an answer, and neither should the executives offering it. Almost always, there is more to the story.

According to data collected and synthesized by the Organizational Research Forum, a respected survey research firm based in Vernon Hills, Illinois, the regard for communication within an organization varies according to grade level.

ORF has found that managers at high levels of a company naturally tend to have high opinions of communication, while hourly workers at low levels have low opinions of it. These findings are consistent with my own observations from focus groups and discussions with people at client companies.

ORF has asked a simple question of people at all levels of numerous companies in a wide range of industries: Are you satisfied with communication in this company? The firm tracked and analyzed the responses by level of hierarchy. The percentages replying yes at each of five main levels appear in the graphic above.

 

While 85 percent of senior managers say they are satisfied with communication in their organizations, only 66 percent of supervisors agree, and only 42 percent of non-exempt employees agree.

 

Part of the problem is reliance on cascading: disseminating strategic information through an organization one level at a time, from the management committee to vice presidents to site leaders and so forth. Cascading teases senior managers into thinking they have communicated, when in fact they rarely have. For a good analysis of cascading, see our July 28, 2010 post on the subject.

For more information on the ORF data, contact Andrew Mosko at 847-816-8611 or write to him at amosko@orf-usa.com. For more information on solutions to the problem, contact me directly at 847-247-2241 or write to me at tom@arceil.com.

 

By the Numbers is a twice-monthly feature presenting business data that is noteworthy, puzzling, alarming, widely misunderstood or misinterpreted, or otherwise deserving of explanation, comment, or clarification. We accompany it with thought-provoking questions or commentary for reflection and discussion. By the Numbers appears on the first and third Monday of each month.

Since its inception in mid-2009, By the Numbers has presented data on a wide variety of issues: employee engagement, organizational culture, trust in business, information overload, strategic communication, CEO compensation, layoffs, job satisfaction, Internet usage, the productivity of meetings, nonverbal communication, and fear in the workplace, among others.

You can read any or all of those posts (and hundreds of other short essays, as well) whenever you wish, just by scrolling through the archives. For a particular subject, use the search button atop the right column.

 
(c) 2010 Arceil Leadership Ltd. All rights reserved.

 Technorati Claim Code WUU227Z6455M

By the Numbers: How Employees Regard Their Managers

 

By the Numbers is a bimonthly feature presenting business data that is noteworthy, puzzling, alarming, widely misunderstood or misinterpreted, or otherwise deserving of explanation, comment, or clarification. We accompany it with thought-provoking questions or commentary for reflection and discussion.

Since its inception a year ago, By the Numbers has explored numerical aspects of a wide variety of issues: employee engagement, organizational culture, trust in business, information overload, strategic communication, CEO compensation, layoffs, job satisfaction, Internet usage, the productivity of meetings, nonverbal communication, and fear in the workplace, among others.

You can read any or all of those posts (and hundreds of other short essays, as well) whenever you wish, just by scrolling through the archives. For a particular subject, use the search button in the right column.
 

 

by Thomas J. Lee

In the wake of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, the vital relationship between employees and their bosses has become quite strained.

According to the 2010 Spherion Bosses Day Workforce Survey, nearly half (45 percent) of all employees say the recession affected the relationship. Three-quarters (74 percent) of that subset said the recession had weakened the relationship.

Transparency and respect are at the heart of any relationship, and in the workplace they have suffered. One out of four workers (25 percent) said their boss is "somewhat or very dishonest" about job security, and more than half (53 percent) feels professionally disrespected by their boss.

Moreover, a substantial minority of workers (37 percent) said their boss has "thrown [them] under the bus" to save himself or herself, and an even larger minority (45 percent) say their boss has unduly taken credit for their work.

The survey also found that 46 percent of workers said they couldn't discuss issues of workplace ethics with their boss, and that 44 percent said they couldn't confide in their boss.

 

 
(c) 2010 Arceil Leadership Ltd. All rights reserved.

Technorati Claim Code WUU227Z6455M

By the Numbers: A Correlation Between Trust and Enthusiasm

By the Numbers is a bimonthly feature presenting business data that is noteworthy, puzzling, alarming, widely misunderstood or misinterpreted, or otherwise deserving of explanation, comment, or clarification. We accompany it with thought-provoking questions or commentary for reflection and discussion.

Since its inception a year ago, By the Numbers has explored numerical aspects of a wide variety of issues: employee engagement, organizational culture, trust in business, information overload, strategic communication, CEO compensation, layoffs, job satisfaction, Internet usage, the productivity of meetings, nonverbal communication, and fear in the workplace, among others.

You can read any or all of those posts (and hundreds of other short essays, as well) whenever you wish, just by scrolling through the archives. For a particular subject, use the search button in the right column.

by Thomas J. Lee

The differences in attitude between those employees with a great deal of trust in management and those employees with little trust in management shows a stark correlation, according to a recent survey by Maritz Research.

Among those with strong trust in management, 63 percent would be happy to spend the remainder of their careers with the company; 51 percent would invest their own money in the company if they could, and 50 percent look forward to coming to work every day.

Among those with weak trust in management, only 7 percent would be happy to spend the remainder of their careers with the company; only 6 percent would invest their own money in the company if they could, and only 3 percent look forward to coming to work every day.

 

(c) 2010 Arceil Leadership Ltd. All rights reserved.   Technorati Claim Code WUU227Z6455M

By the Numbers: Employee Perceptions on Walking the Talk

By the Numbers is a bimonthly feature presenting business data that is noteworthy, puzzling, alarming, widely misunderstood or misinterpreted, or otherwise deserving of explanation, comment, or clarification. We accompany it with thought-provoking questions or commentary for reflection and discussion.

Since its inception a year ago, By the Numbers has explored numerical aspects of a wide variety of issues: employee engagement, organizational culture, trust in business, information overload, strategic communication, CEO compensation, layoffs, job satisfaction, Internet usage, the productivity of meetings, nonverbal communication, and fear in the workplace, among others.

You can read any or all of those posts (and hundreds of other short essays, as well) whenever you wish, just by scrolling through the archives. For a particular subject, use the search button in the right column.

 

by Thomas J. Lee 

Years ago there was a Disney cartoon character who appeared in Pinnochio cartoons. Jiminy Cricket was a dapper little bug who wore a top hat and often carried a gentleman's umbrella as a cane. He usually stood on Pinocchio's shoulder and, in a raspy voice, whispered the right thing to do. Listening to Jiminy Crickett was the same as listening to your conscience.

Jiminy Cricket's avuncular advice was a cautionary reminder to shore up your integrity -- not merely by "walking the talk," such a hackneyed phrase that is -- but by speaking the truth, embodying a noble purpose, and doing right by people.

Now few executives ever deliberately set out to compromise or undermine their own credibility. But few seem able to command the confidence of employees.

According to a recent survey by Maritz Research, only 11 percent of employees said they strongly agree that their managers show consistency between their words and their actions. Perhaps worse, only 7 percent of employees said they strongly agree that senior leaders of their company look out for their best interests.

 

Technorati Claim Code WUU227Z6455M 

By the Numbers: Jobs, Salaries, and Budgets at Hewlett-Packard

 

By the Numbers is a bimonthly feature presenting business data that is noteworthy, puzzling, alarming, widely misunderstood or misinterpreted, or otherwise deserving of explanation, comment, or clarification. We accompany it with thought-provoking questions or commentary for reflection and discussion.

Since its inception last summer, By the Numbers has explored numerical aspects of a wide variety of issues: employee engagement, organizational culture, trust in business, information overload, strategic communication, layoffs, job satisfaction, Internet usage, the productivity of meetings, nonverbal communication, and fear in the workplace, among others.

You can read any or all of those posts (and hundreds of other short essays, as well) whenever you wish, just by scrolling down. For a particular subject, use the search button in the right column.

 

 

Last week in this space we waxed eloquent on the dismissal of Mark V. Hurd as chief executive of Hewlett-Packard. Before we move on, we offer this statistical picture of the company in the wake of his five-year tenure.

These facts and figures have appeared in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Forbes, and other publications.

 

Hewlett-Packard’s revenue has skyrocketed from $80 billion in 2004 to $115 billion in 2009, while Cisco Systems’ has risen proportionately even more, from $22 billion to $36 billion, but as IBM’s has stagnated, growing only from $95 billion to $96 billion, in the same time frame.

In 2009, Hewlett-Packard announced across-the-board cuts in employee compensation. Mr. Hurd took a 20 percent reduction, but only on his salary, which accounted for a small share of his overall compensation. Managers took a cut of 10 percent, salaried workers 5 percent, and hourly workers 2.5 percent.

HP’s famed research and development budget was 4 percent of revenue in 2005, and hovers just above 2 percent now, a potentially devastating reduction for a company that is known for its innovation, and whose slogan is Invent.

Under Mr. Hurd's tenure, more than 15,000 Hewlett-Packard employees lost their jobs, while his total compensation during the last two years exceeded $72 million.

HP employees recently gave the company only 1.6 stars, out of 5 possible, as a place to work. By comparison, two companies with whom HP competes for labor, Cisco Systems and IBM, get much higher marks: 3.5 stars for Cisco and 3.7 stars for IBM.

Employees of Hewlett-Packard give their former CEO an approval rating of only 30 percent, while employees of IBM give their CEO a rating of 40 percent, and employees of Cisco give theirs a rating of 60 percent.

Prior to Mr. Hurd’s dismissal, almost two out of every three HP employees said they intended to seek employment elsewhere as soon as the economy improved.

 

Questions: What do these facts and figures tell you about Mr. Hurd as a chief executive? What lessons can you derive for your own leadership? Do you believe that economic adversity invariably depresses employee engagement? How can a company whose employees suffer under a CEO restore their engagement in the wake of his departure?

 

 

 

 

Technorati Claim Code WUU227Z6455M

By the Numbers: Credit Squeeze

By the Numbers is a regular feature presenting business data that is noteworthy, puzzling, alarming, widely misunderstood or misinterpreted, or otherwise deserving of explanation, comment, or clarification. We accompany it with thought-provoking questions or commentary for reflection and discussion.

Since its inception last summer, By the Numbers has explored numerical aspects of a wide variety of issues: employee engagement, organizational culture, trust in business, information overload, strategic communication, layoffs, job satisfaction, Internet usage, the productivity of meetings, nonverbal communication, and fear in the workplace, among others.

You can read any or all of those posts whenever you wish, just by visiting www.MindingGaps.com and scrolling down to any of the hundreds of short essays that follow. For a particular subject, use the search button in the right column. By the Numbers appears on the first and third Mondays of the month. (Note that we will be on vacation in the first week of September.)

The percentage of American consumers who are experiencing credit pressure has increased during the last two years, according to Fair Isaac, a firm specializing in credit scores and aggregate data.

Amid the most severe recession since the Great Depression, the number of people in the lowest credit-score categories grew by 2.4 million, to 43.4 million. Now, 25.5 percent of Americans score below 600 on the scale, which goes from 300 to 850.

A score of 700 or higher is regarded as good; a score of below 600 is regarded as poor. The distribution reflects a bell curve.

Questions: What does the fact that economic conditions affect credit ratings mean for businesses that rely on credit scores when determining which applicant to hire? Does it bear on your trust in people? Should an adjustment of a company’s bond rating affect the trust that customers place in the company’s products and services?

Technorati Claim Code WUU227Z6455M

 

By the Numbers: The Rising Tide of Incivility

By the Numbers is a regular feature presenting business data that is noteworthy, puzzling, alarming, widely misunderstood or misinterpreted, or otherwise deserving of explanation, comment, or clarification. We accompany it with thought-provoking questions or commentary for reflection and discussion.

Since its inception last summer, By the Numbers has explored numerical aspects of a wide variety of issues: employee engagement, organizational culture, trust in business, information overload, strategic communication, layoffs, job satisfaction, Internet usage, the productivity of meetings, nonverbal communication, and fear in the workplace, among others.

You can read any or all of those posts whenever you wish, just by visiting www.MindingGaps.com and scrolling down to any of the hundreds of short essays that follow. For a particular subject, use the search button in the right column. By the Numbers appears on the first and third Mondays of the month.

Probably most business executives assume their workplace is, at a minimum, civil. However, many employees disagree.

According to an April survey by Powell Tate/Weber Shandwick in partnership with KRC Research, 40 percent of Americans say that companies and places of employment are uncivil.

That compares favorably with government (which 72 percent say is uncivil), traffic (69 percent) and talk radio (59 percent). However, it compares less favorably with family (17 percent) and places of worship (14 percent).

For sure, the news could be worse. Business could be regarded as uncivil as talk radio or government. Still, there is room for improvement, especially for those companies that like to regard themselves as a family.

Questions: What should civility look like in the business world? What does its absence look like and sound like? What are the costs and consequences of the perception that the workplace is uncivil? Why might some employees of your organization think it is an uncivil place to work? What behaviors might contribute to that perception, and who would be likely to exhibit them? What can you do about it?

Technorati Claim Code WUU227Z6455M

By the Numbers: Do You Just Assume Your Communication Is Good?

By the Numbers is a regular feature presenting business data that is noteworthy, puzzling, alarming, widely misunderstood or misinterpreted, or otherwise deserving of explanation, comment, or clarification. We accompany it with thought-provoking questions or commentary for reflection and discussion.

Since its inception last summer, By the Numbers has explored numerical aspects of a wide variety of issues: employee engagement, organizational culture, information overload, trust in business, strategic communication, layoffs, job satisfaction, Internet usage, the productivity of meetings, nonverbal communication, and fear in the workplace, among others.

You can read any or all of those posts whenever you wish, just by visiting www.MindingGaps.com and scrolling down to any of the hundreds of short essays that follow. For a particular subject, use the search button in the right column. By the Numbers now appears on the first and third Mondays of the month.

Most supervisors probably think they communicate well. However, in a recent survey conducted by Vital Smarts, 87 percent of employees said their boss was unclear about improvements the employees needed to make to perform better in their jobs.

Data like this suggests that managerial confidence in its own communication competency may be unfounded. At the very least it deserves to be audited.

Questions: Have you ever subjected your organization’s or team’s communication to an external audit? What do you fear you might find if you did? How can you improve without knowing your baseline? How can you measure your improvement? How can you know what needs to be improved? Or do you just assume your organization or team is good enough?

Technorati Claim Code WUU227Z6455M

 

By the Numbers: The Hidden Wage

By the Numbers is a regular feature presenting business data that is noteworthy, puzzling, alarming, widely misunderstood or misinterpreted, or otherwise deserving of explanation, comment, or clarification. We accompany it with thought-provoking questions or commentary for reflection and discussion.

Since its inception last summer, By the Numbers has explored numerical aspects of a wide variety of issues: employee engagement, organizational culture, information overload, trust in business, strategic communication, layoffs, job satisfaction, Internet usage, the productivity of meetings, nonverbal communication, and fear in the workplace, among others.

You can read any or all of those posts whenever you wish, just by scrolling down to the hundreds of short essays that follow this one. For a particular subject, use the search button in the right column. By the Numbers now appears on the first and third Mondays of the month.

American employers pay a substantial hidden wage to employees. On average, it accounts for additional compensation totaling 41.2 percent of base wages and salaries, accounting to the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics. As a percentage of total compensation, base pay accounts for 70.8 percent, and benefits account for 29.2 percent.

The largest components are legally required benefits, such as Social Security, workers compensation, and Medicare (8.2 percent); insurance (7.8 percent), and paid leave (6.8 percent).

Questions: Do these figures surprise you? Are they greater or lesser than you had assumed? Do employees appreciate how much of their total compensation is in the form of benefits? What is the impact of these costs on your competitiveness abroad?

 

Technorati Claim Code WUU227Z6455M

By the Numbers: Transparency in Compensation

By the Numbers is a regular feature presenting business data that is noteworthy, puzzling, alarming, widely misunderstood or misinterpreted, or otherwise deserving of explanation, comment, or clarification. We accompany it with thought-provoking questions or commentary for reflection and discussion.

Since its inception last summer, By the Numbers has explored numerical aspects of a wide variety of issues: employee engagement, organizational culture, information overload, trust in business, strategic communication, layoffs, job satisfaction, Internet usage, the productivity of meetings, nonverbal communication, and fear in the workplace, among others.

You can read any or all of those posts whenever you wish, just by scrolling down to the hundreds of short essays that follow this one. For a particular subject, use the search button in the right column. Beginning next month, By the Numbers will appear on the first and third Mondays of the month.

In the U.S. private sector, many people are reluctant to disclose their level of compensation. There are some exceptions, of course. People employed in entry-level jobs have nothing to hide. Wages for unionized employees are publicly known. Salaries and bonuses paid to senior executives are often a matter of public record, and high-profile individuals such as professional athletes and entertainers can make headlines with news of their pay.

But these are exceptions that prove the rule. For the most part, few people willingly disclose their compensation if they are not obligated to do so.

It turns out that their reluctance may be more the result of culture and tradition than personal preference. According to a recent Glassdoor.com salary survey, conducted by Harris Interactive, slightly more than half of American men (55 percent) and almost half of women (47 percent) think it would be preferable for companies to disclose salary data by job title.

Among people presently unemployed and actively seeking employment, 63 percent believe both employees and job seekers would be best served if companies made compensation by job title public.

Do you agree? Disagree? What is the basis for your opinion? Would more transparency on compensation tend to build or erode employee engagement, in your opinion? If you believe it would erode engagement, how do you square your opinion with the engagement of high-profile individuals whose compensation is well known?

Technorati Claim Code WUU227Z6455M

 

By the Numbers: A Content Analysis of Twitter

By the Numbers is a weekly feature presenting business data that is noteworthy, puzzling, alarming, widely misunderstood or misinterpreted, or otherwise deserving of explanation, comment, or clarification. We accompany it with thought-provoking questions or commentary for reflection and discussion.

Since its inception last summer, By the Numbers has explored numerical aspects of a wide variety of issues: employee engagement, organizational culture, information overload, trust in business, strategic communication, layoffs, job satisfaction, Internet usage, the productivity of meetings, nonverbal communication, and fear in the workplace, among others.

You can read any or all of those posts whenever you wish, just by scrolling down to the hundreds of short essays that follow this one. For a particular subject, use the search button in the right column. Please note that, beginning in June, By the Numbers will appear on the first and third Mondays only.

Today we address the purposes of micro-blogging, the most popular form of which is Twitter.

Pear Analytics, a consulting firm based in San Antonio, Texas,  analyzed the content of 2,000 tweets (i.e., Twitter messages) that were sent over a two-week period in August 2009. All were sent in English, within the United States, and during the daytime.

The content analysis showed this breakdown of the apparent worth or purposes of messages:

Pointless Babble	41 %
Conversation	38 %
Worthy of Passing Along	9 %
Self-Promotion	6 %
Spam	4 %
News	4 %

As you review this data, you may wish to ask yourself whether your own experience with Twitter is appreciably different. If so, how? If not, does this content analysis suggest that you should be regarding Twitter differently? In what way?

Technorati Claim Code WUU227Z6455M

By the Numbers: New Role for Trust in U.S. Companies

By the Numbers is a weekly feature presenting business data that is noteworthy, puzzling, alarming, widely misunderstood or misinterpreted, or otherwise deserving of explanation, comment, or clarification. We accompany it with thought-provoking questions or commentary for reflection and discussion. It usually appears on Monday.

Since its inception last summer, By the Numbers has explored numerical aspects of a wide variety of issues: employee engagement, organizational culture, information overload, trust in business, strategic communication, layoffs, job satisfaction, Internet usage, the productivity of meetings, nonverbal communication, and fear in the workplace, among others.

You can read any or all of those posts whenever you wish, just by scrolling down to the hundreds of short essays that follow this one. For a particular issue, use the search button in the right column.

This is the last in a series of posts on trust and confidence of Americans in major institutions.

Trust in business sank to historic lows during the Great Recession of 2007-2009. However, in the wake of the economic recovery, trust appears to be rebounding somewhat.

According to the well-regarded Edelman Trust Barometer, trust in U.S.-based businesses has jumped 18 percentage points, to 54 percent, since 2009. The study measures attitudes on trust among well-educated, affluent, and well-informed people in 22 countries.

The rebound is attributed not only to the economic recovery but also to a new emphasis by many companies on engaging with stakeholders, treating employees well, and playing a constructive role in addressing societal challenges, according to Edelman, the world’s largest public reputation consultancy, and the sponsor of the Barometer.

But the rebounding confidence is tenuous, as nearly 70 percent of Americans believe that business “will revert to old habits” in the future, Edelman found.

One other data point is especially interesting. As recently as 2007, profitability was regarded as the No. 1 criterion for evaluating U.S.-based companies. According to Edelman, it now ranks at the bottom.

What has taken its place? You guessed it: transparency and trust.

Technorati Claim Code WUU227Z6455M

 

By the Numbers: Where There Is Trust

By the Numbers is a weekly feature presenting business data that is noteworthy, puzzling, alarming, widely misunderstood or misinterpreted, or otherwise deserving of explanation, comment, or clarification. We accompany it with thought-provoking questions or commentary for reflection and discussion. It usually appears on Monday.

Since its inception last summer, By the Numbers has explored numerical aspects of a wide variety of issues: employee engagement, organizational culture, information overload, trust in business, strategic communication, layoffs, job satisfaction, Internet usage, the productivity of meetings, nonverbal communication, and fear in the workplace, among others.

You can read any or all of those posts whenever you wish, just by scrolling down to the hundreds of short essays that follow this one.

We are devoting several weeks to the erosion of trust and confidence of Americans in major institutions. Last week we looked at the federal government. Today we look at several institutions that are maintaining the trust and confidence of the American public.

Not all our great institutions are the brunt of a prairie fire of distrust and doubt. Americans still hold some in high regard.

According to new data from the Pew Research Center, colleges and universities maintain the trust and confidence of 61 percent of Americans, more than twice the number (26 percent) of those who lack trust and confidence in higher education.

Churches, for all the well-publicized moral failings of numerous ecclesiastical leaders, do even slightly better than that. Their corresponding data is 63 percent and 22 percent.

Even some agencies of government do well. For example, 67 percent of Americans say they have trust and confidence in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and in the Department of Defense; 58 percent say the same about the Food and Drug Administration, and 57 percent say it about the Environmental Protection Agency.

Technorati Claim Code WUU227Z6455M

By the Numbers / Eroding Trust in Major Institutions: Government

By the Numbers is a weekly feature presenting business data that is noteworthy, puzzling, alarming, widely misunderstood or misinterpreted, or otherwise deserving of explanation, comment, or clarification. We accompany it with thought-provoking questions or commentary for reflection and discussion. It usually appears on Monday.

Since its inception last summer, By the Numbers has explored numerical aspects of a wide variety of issues: employee engagement, organizational culture, information overload, trust in business, strategic communication, layoffs, job satisfaction, Internet usage, the productivity of meetings, nonverbal communication, and fear in the workplace, among others.

You can read any or all of those posts whenever you wish, just by scrolling down to the hundreds of short essays that follow this one.

Beginning today and continuing for the next several weeks, we will examine the erosion of trust by Americans in major institutions. We look first at trust in the federal government.

 

A pervasive sense of frustration among Americans with their federal government is not new. Researchers noted it long ago, and the numbers have been surprisingly consistent over the last few administrations.

Apart from a big surge of confidence in the wake of the 2001 terrorist attacks, the percentage of Americans who say they are frustrated with the federal government all or most of the time has held steady during the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations. According to a new survey by the Pew Research Center, it presently stands at 56 percent.

What is new is the level of hostility toward Washington. From 12 percent in 1997 and 13 percent in 2004, the percent of Americans who say they are angry at the federal government all or most of the time exploded to 20 percent in 2006. It is now at 21 percent.

The level of trust in the federal government is somewhat more variable, but at a new low nonetheless. According to Pew Research, only 22 percent of Americans say that all or most of the time they trust the federal government to do what is right.

 

Technorati Claim Code WUU227Z6455M

 

By the Numbers: Many Companies Ignore People Development

By the Numbers is a weekly feature presenting business data that is noteworthy, puzzling, alarming, widely misunderstood or misinterpreted, or otherwise deserving of explanation, comment, or clarification. We accompany it with thought-provoking questions or commentary for reflection and discussion. It usually appears on Monday.

Since its inception last summer, By the Numbers has explored numerical aspects of a wide variety of issues: employee engagement, organizational culture, information overload, trust in business, strategic communication, layoffs, job satisfaction, Internet usage, the productivity of meetings, nonverbal communication, and fear in the workplace, among others. You can read any or all of those posts whenever you wish, just by scrolling down to the hundreds of short essays that follow this one.

Today we look at the infrequency of professional-development discussions between employees and their managers.

After hearing so many companies proclaim that people are their most important asset, you would think that more of them would cultivate the growth and development of their people. Alas, in one key respect, the opposite appears to be closer to the norm.

According to a survey by Right Management, a unit of Manpower Inc., 30 percent of employees have a discussion about their career progression and development with their manager only once a year. If you think that is bad, Right Management also found that 37 percent of employees never have such a discussion at all.

The remainder are split between semi-annual discussions (17 percent) and quarterly discussions (15 percent).

Melvin Scales, senior vice president of global solutions for Right Management, said discussions on career development are frequently a low priority because of time constraints and the unpredictability of change. “Career management can end up on the back burner for both managers and individuals,” he said.

“While managers might express the importance of employees managing their own careers, the research shows that this concept is unsupported by real action,” said Scales. “Individuals need to take responsibility for managing their own career. Unfortunately, many are not equipped with the information or opportunity to have meaningful career discussions with their managers.”

Technorati Claim Code WUU227Z6455M

By the Numbers: The Many Faces of Facebook

By the Numbers is a weekly feature presenting business data that is noteworthy, puzzling, alarming, widely misunderstood or misinterpreted, or otherwise deserving of explanation, comment, or clarification. We accompany it with thought-provoking questions or commentary for reflection and discussion. It usually appears on Monday.

Since its inception last summer, By the Numbers has explored numerical aspects of a wide variety of issues: employee engagement, organizational culture, information overload, trust in business, strategic communication, layoffs, job satisfaction, Internet usage, the productivity of meetings, nonverbal communication, and fear in the workplace, among others. You can read any or all of those posts whenever you wish, just by scrolling down to the hundreds of short essays that follow this one.

Today we look at the phenomenal popularity of Facebook.

Behind only the Google search engine, Facebook has become the second-most-popular destination on the Web. That has far-reaching implications for any business that is alert enough to notice it—and agile enough to act on it.

According to the site’s blog:

• Facebook has more than 400 million active users, half of whom log on in any given day.
  
  
• Each user spends nearly an hour on the site per day.
  
  
• Each week, Facebook users post more than 5 billion pieces of content (comments, links, photos, YouTube videos, etc.) on the site.
  
  
• More than 3 million companies and organizations have their own pages on Facebook, and more than 20 million people become fans of these pages every day. There are now more than 5.3 billion fans of pages.

Technorati Claim Code WUU227Z6455M

By the Numbers: Gender Discrimination in Compensation

By the Numbers is a weekly feature presenting business data that is noteworthy, puzzling, alarming, widely misunderstood or misinterpreted, or otherwise deserving of explanation, comment, or clarification. We accompany it with thought-provoking questions or commentary for reflection and discussion. It usually appears on Mondays.

Since its inception last summer, By the Numbers has explored numerical aspects of a wide variety of issues: employee engagement, organizational culture, information overload, trust in business, strategic communication, layoffs, job satisfaction, Internet usage, the productivity of meetings, nonverbal communication, and fear in the workplace, among others. You can read any or all of those posts whenever you wish, just by scrolling down to the hundreds of short essays that follow this one.

Today we look at the difference in compensation for women and men in equivalent positions.

The difference in compensation for men and for women has long been established. For years, it was reported that women were paid 59 cents on the dollar paid to men. Critics ascribed any such disparity to differences in responsibility, education, tenure on the job, negotiating skills, and other factors. 

Now come data from Catalyst, a nonprofit membership organization, that controls for such differences and yet still finds a very significant disparity. After controlling for external factors, researchers still found a sizable difference in compensation for initial positions: $4,600, on average. You can read the full report here.

 

Technorati Claim Code WUU227Z6455M

By the Numbers: Stark Differences in Perception of Restructurings

By the Numbers is a weekly feature presenting business data that is noteworthy, puzzling, alarming, widely misunderstood or misinterpreted, or otherwise deserving of explanation, comment, or clarification. We accompany it with thought-provoking questions or commentary for reflection and discussion. It usually appears on Monday.

Since its inception last summer, By the Numbers has explored numerical aspects of a wide variety of issues: employee engagement, organizational culture, information overload, trust in business, strategic communication, layoffs, job satisfaction, Internet usage, the productivity of meetings, nonverbal communication, and fear in the workplace, among others. You can read any or all of those posts whenever you wish, just by scrolling down to the hundreds of short essays that follow this one.

Today we look at a striking difference between management and the workforce on the impact of restructurings.

 

Now that the economy has been growing again for two quarters—and the recession is therefore technically historical—we can look back with 20/20 hindsight and assess the damage. The last two years saw widespread cutbacks, restructurings, and even bankruptcies. Few companies came through unscathed. Some just didn't make it, period.

According to a study by Towers Watson, almost three of every four companies reported either a restructuring or a layoff or both since mid-2008, and almost nine of every ten companies reported taking at least one or two severe actions to stanch the financial bleeding. The median was 3.5 such actions. (Keep in mind, these are the companies that survived long enough to be surveyed afterward!)

That isn't what is most surprising. The recession was severe. What's most surprising is the sharp difference between employers and employees as to the long-term impact of those moves, unavoidable though they doubtless were.

Among employers, only 17 percent said the restructurings and cutbacks would have an adverse effect on either work quality or service to customers. Among employees, 42 percent said so. That's a dramatic difference in perception.

Regardless of who is right here, the stark difference tells us a couple of things.

First, it says that what you see depends a good deal on where you sit. Perspective matters a great deal. Reality is rarely, if ever, objective.

Second, it suggests that neither employer nor employee probably has a completely unbiased view. Who is closer to the truth is arguable, and the argument is probably neither conclusive nor productive.

Finally, it tells us that companies will be smart to determine for themselves just how severe the impact is likely to be, and then to get busy mitigating that damage as much as they possibly can.

For companies that act quickly, this may be the easiest path to a short-term (and perhaps even long-term) competitive advantage. Conversely, for companies that do nothing, it may passively create an advantage for their competitors. That isn't the kind of competitive advantage anyone wants—except competitors, of course.

Technorati Claim Code WUU227Z6455M

By the Numbers: Unemployment Among the Educated Elite

By the Numbers is a weekly feature presenting business data that is noteworthy, alarming, widely misunderstood or misinterpreted, or otherwise deserving of explanation, comment, or clarification. We accompany it with thought-provoking questions or commentary for reflection and discussion. It usually appears on Monday.

Since its inception last summer, By the Numbers has explored numerical aspects of a wide variety of issues: employee engagement, organizational culture, information overload, trust in business, strategic communication, layoffs, job satisfaction, Internet usage, the productivity of meetings, nonverbal communication, and fear in the workplace, among others. You can read any or all of those posts whenever you wish, just by scrolling down to the hundreds of short essays that follow this one.

Today we look at joblessness in the United States among education-based cohorts.

Unemployment has never been an equal-opportunity employer itself. The big differentiator is education. Indeed, the best shield any young person can acquire against eventual unemployment is a college degree or better.

At present, the U.S. unemployment rate stands at 9.7 percent. According to the Boston Globe, it is much worse among people without a high-school diploma: 15 percent. In sharp contrast, among people with a college degree, it is only 5 percent.

Technorati Claim Code WUU227Z6455M

By the Numbers: Avatar is Not the Most Popular Movie Ever

By the Numbers is a weekly feature presenting business data that is noteworthy, alarming, widely misunderstood or misinterpreted, or otherwise deserving of explanation, comment, or clarification. We accompany it with thought-provoking questions or commentary for reflection and discussion. It usually appears on Monday.

Since its inception last summer, By the Numbers has explored numerical aspects of a wide variety of issues: employee engagement, organizational culture, information overload, trust in business, strategic communication, layoffs, job satisfaction, Internet usage, the productivity of meetings, nonverbal communication, and fear in the workplace, among others. You can read any or all of those posts whenever you wish, just by scrolling down.

Today we take a step back and, using the timely example of Oscar-winning movies, look at the tricky work of comparing phenomena over time.

Millions of people around the world watched the Academy Awards last night. It’s fair to say that most of them are still under the impression that Avatar is the most popular movie of all time.

Introducing the best picture's Oscar-winning director, Barbra Streisand called Avatar "the most successful movie ever made." That appeared to be no exaggeration. After all, Avatar has earned more money, by far, than any other movie in history: more than $2.7 billion and counting.

In fact, however, Avatar is not the most popular movie ever produced. It isn’t even close. This little misalignment of facts over its success should be of importance to anyone in business. Facts can be inconvenient things.

The misunderstanding rests on the fact that the gold standard by which movies are commonly judged—gold, in more ways than one—is box-office receipts. In other words, the popularity of movies is conventionally measured by total ticket revenue.

You may take that for granted. You may not question it. However, other industries measure their success differently: by units, not dollars, of sales or production.

To name just three such industries, think of book publishing, television viewing, and automobile manufacturing. Each of those industries counts the books, or the viewers, or the cars and trucks. Of course they also count the money that customers spend; but their industries don't rate the players (i.e., the competing companies) by dollar revenues. They rate them by units sold.

It is no accident that movies use not headcount but ticket revenue measured in dollars. That device serves the industry's interests. Hollywood has an economic incentive in perpetuating the myth that every new blockbuster is the most popular movie ever produced, so that more people buy more tickets to see the "most popular movie ever." Thus the industry has chosen a metric that inevitably crowns a new all-time winner every couple of years: dollars. It is a convenient ruse, and it fools almost everybody.

But box-office receipts measured in dollars are a valid measure only if they are adjusted for inflation and for the evolution in ticket prices. A dollar today is almost always worth less than a dollar yesterday, and ticket prices are wildly variable. Avatar alone, because it is offered in multiple formats (3D, 2D, 3D IMAX, and plain old vanilla) has four different ticket prices, some of them much more than even the current prices of other movies. Put the two phenomena together, and you have ready-made basis for distortion.

If the list of all-time blockbusters were adjusted for inflation and ticket prices, you would see that Avatar is a long way from the top. In other words, if you count the number of people attending a movie, rather than the money they are paying for tickets, you get a different result, and a much more accurate one.

It turns out that Gone With the Wind is still No. 1 almost 75 years after its 1939 release, according to boxofficemojo.com, which tracks such things. Star Wars (produced a generation ago, in 1977) places second on the all-time list. Rounding out the top five are The Sound of Music (1965), ET (1982), and The Ten Commandments (1956).

Adjusted for inflation, Avatar is currently running fourteenth on the all-time list. It may not remain even that high. It took in $77 million during its opening weekend, less than three months ago. This weekend, Alice in Wonderland took in $116.3 million on its opening weekend. Look for Alice to overtake Avatar within months.

What does all this mean for you?

We have picked apart the popularity of movies as an easy, simple example of a phenomenon that often confuses people. The lesson you should take away is just this: Whenever you are viewing data that may not have a common basis, ask yourself whether the scale of comparison is valid and why it was selected.

Don't assume the explanation is obvious or reasonable. Don't settle for the easy answer. Keep on asking the tougher questions. Always, always, keep on asking tougher questions.

Technorati Claim Code WUU227Z6455M

By the Numbers: A Generational Divide for Millennials

By the Numbers is a weekly feature presenting business data that is noteworthy, alarming, widely misunderstood or misinterpreted, or otherwise deserving of explanation, comment, or clarification. We accompany it with thought-provoking questions or commentary for reflection and discussion. It usually appears on Monday, though we were AWOL last week, for which we apologize.

Since its inception in 2009, By the Numbers has explored issues of employee engagement, organizational culture, information overload, trust in business, strategic communication, layoffs, job satisfaction, Internet usage, productivity of meetings, nonverbal communication, and fear in the workplace, among others. You can read any or all of those posts whenever you wish, just by scrolling down.

Today we look at generational differences, especially involving the Millennial Generation.

There is good news and bad news in the new data published by the Pew Research Center on the Millennial Generation, people born since 1981 who have come into maturity since the 21st century began. Taken as a whole, the findings presage greater reliance on leadership in business than on traditional forms of management.

Pew calls this generation of Americans much more “confident, self-expressive, liberal, upbeat, and open to change” than the other three basic age cohorts: Generation X (born between 1965 and 1980), the Baby Boomers (born between 1945 and 1964), the so-called Silent Generation (born between 1928 and 1944), and the fabled Greatest Generation (born prior to 1928).

We can thus expect young employees to be more eager to embrace change and more insistent on finding the nobility, purpose, and meaning of work. For the time being, mere compensation will not be enough to meet their needs.

What makes the Millennials unique? According to 24 percent of them, it is the embrace of technology; fully 83 percent of these people have slept or do sleep with their cell phones within reach. Just 12 percent of Gen X respondents cited technology, and not enough of either Boomers or the older generations cited it to be recorded.

On the other hand, few Millennials spoke of work ethic as their generation’s distinguishing characteristic, in contrast to Boomers (17 percent), Gen X (11 percent), and Silents (10 percent), all of whom did mention it.

As you reflect on this data, ask yourself how your management and leadership style should change to accommodate and optimize the value of young people coming to work in your organization, especially as the economy continues to improve.

Technorati Claim Code WUU227Z6455M

By the Numbers: Internet Usage Rises to 13 Hours per Week

By the Numbers is a weekly feature presenting business data that is noteworthy, alarming, widely misunderstood or misinterpreted, or otherwise deserving of explanation, comment, or clarification. We accompany it with thought-provoking questions or commentary for reflection and discussion. It usually appears on Monday.

Since its inception last summer, By the Numbers has explored issues of employee engagement, organizational culture, information overload, trust in business, strategic communication, layoffs, job satisfaction, nonverbal communication, and fear in the workplace, among others.

Today we look at the dramatic increase in Internet usage since 2000.

A new Harris Poll has found that adults are devoting more and more time to the Internet. The average for all American adults is now at 13 hours online per week.

The trend is widely variable, though. Twenty percent of adults computer users are online for only two hours a week or less. Fourteen percent are online for 24 hours a week or more.

The average has increased from 7 hours per week a decade ago and from between 8 and 9 hours in mid-decade. In 2007, it stood at 11 hours per week.

Interestingly, users between the ages of 30 and 65 spend significantly more time online—averaging 17 or 18 hours a week—than their counterparts younger than 30 or older than 65.

As you reflect on this data, ask yourself whether your efforts to communicate by social media are keeping pace with the steady rise in online usage.

Technorati Claim Code WUU227Z6455M

 

By the Numbers: Most People Have Been Laid Off at One Time

By the Numbers is a weekly feature presenting business data that is noteworthy, alarming, widely misunderstood or misinterpreted, or otherwise deserving of explanation, comment, or clarification. We accompany it with thought-provoking questions or commentary for reflection and discussion. It usually appears on Monday.

Since its inception last summer, By the Numbers has explored issues of employee engagement, organizational culture, information overload, trust in business, strategic communication, job satisfaction, nonverbal communication, and fear in the workplace, among others.

Today we look at reductions in force, commonly known as layoffs. 

There was a time when losing a job carried a social stigma as well as an economic sting, but that time is long behind us.

According to a survey by Right Management, 54 percent of people have been involuntarily separated from their employment at one time or other during their careers. Moreover, the survey was conducted prior to the recent recession, so the figure is probably even higher now.

Downsizing and restructurings are by far the most common reason for people to change employment either voluntarily or involuntarily, the firm reports. That figure, too, was 54 percent. Seeking new challenges and opportunities was second at 30 percent. Ineffective leadership came in third at 25 percent.

As you reflect on this data, ask yourself whether boom and bust employment cycles can be avoided or mitigated and, if so, how. What combination of government policy and employment practice, if any, could stabilize employment at optimal levels?

Technorati Claim Code WUU227Z6455M

By the Numbers: Workplace Safety

By the Numbers is a weekly feature presenting business data that is noteworthy, alarming, widely misunderstood or misinterpreted, or otherwise deserving of explanation, comment, or clarification. We accompany it with thought-provoking questions or commentary for reflection and discussion. It usually appears on Monday.

Since its inception last summer, By the Numbers has explored issues of employee engagement, organizational culture, information overload, trust in business, strategic communication, job satisfaction, nonverbal communication, and fear in the workplace, among others.

 

Work-related injuries, both fatal and nonfatal, continued a 15-year decline in the United States in 2008, the most-recent year for which statistics are available.

According to preliminary data, the United States experienced 3.9 cases of work-related nonfatal injury or illness per 100 full-time workers in 2008. That represents a substantial decrease from 4.2 cases in 2007.

Also by a preliminary tally, there were 3.6 work-related fatalities per 100,000 full-time workers in 2008. That, too, represents a substantial decrease from 2007, when the comparable figure was 4.0, and a dramatic decrease from 1994, when it was 5.6.

Still, there were 5,071 workplace fatalities in the United States in 2008. That is far more than the death toll of our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan last year, or of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, or of drug abuse, or of swine flu.

No one can rest until this figure is zero. 

 

As you reflect on this data, explore the implications on workplace safety from the trend to multitasking and the proliferation of smart phones and personal data devices.

 

 

Technorati Claim Code WUU227Z6455M

By the Numbers: The Black Hole of Meetings

By the Numbers is a weekly feature presenting business data that is noteworthy, alarming, widely misunderstood or misinterpreted, or otherwise deserving of explanation, comment, or clarification. We accompany it with thought-provoking questions or commentary for reflection and discussion. It usually appears on Monday.

Since its inception last summer, By the Numbers has explored issues of employee engagement, organizational culture, information overload, trust in business, strategic communication, job satisfaction, nonverbal communication, and fear in the workplace, among others.

Today we look at the opportunity cost of meetings in terms of time.

We came across some intriguing research. Studies by the University of Minnesota and the Annenberg School of Communications at UCLA indicate there are 25 million meetings in the United States alone every business day, most of them routine staff meetings for the exchange of information. Executives on average spend 40 to 50 percent of their working hours in meetings.

Moreover, the studies show that 50 percent of time devoted to meetings is unproductive, and that up to 25 percent of a typical meeting is spent discussing irrelevant issues. Finally, the studies show that 90 percent of people daydream in meetings.

Now whenever I see such round figures as these, I am a little suspect. Yet these numbers strike me as plausible. If anything, they may be on the conservative side.

Of course, meetings are basic to business. As you reflect on this data, ask yourself: How can you improve their management so that meetings are less wasteful and less frustrating?

Be sure to come back tomorrow, when we will introduce our six PEOPLE principles for good meetings. 

By the Numbers: Still More Data on Engagement

 

By the Numbers is a weekly feature presenting business data that is noteworthy, alarming, widely misunderstood or misinterpreted, or otherwise deserving of explanation, comment, or clarification. We accompany it with thought-provoking questions or commentary for reflection and discussion. It usually appears on Monday.

Since its inception last summer, By the Numbers has explored issues of employee engagement, organizational culture, information overload, trust in business, strategic communication, job satisfaction, nonverbal communication, and fear in the workplace, among others.

 

For the last two Mondays in this space, we have presented data on the erosion of engagement and satisfaction among employees. Today we have more data. Just can’t get enough, it seems.

On January 4, this column cited a 2009 study by Towers Perrin (now known as Towers Watson, by the way). It found that only 21 percent of corporate employees worldwide are truly engaged in their work. The rest are about evenly divided between disengaged and sort-of, kind-of engaged: 38 percent describe themselves as mostly or entirely disengaged, while 41 percent are in the mushy middle.

Then on January 11, we reported on a new Conference Board study that found continuing evidence of a 22-year decline in job satisfaction among American workers. Of 5,000 people contacted for the study, only 45 percent said they were satisfied with their jobs. That is down from 61 percent in 1987. Moreover, the trend is pervasive, across all demographic cohorts.

Today (right on schedule!) we have a new report from Gallup, the folks who gave us the Q12. According to its research, only 28 percent of US-based workers are engaged, while 54 percent are not engaged, and 18 percent are actively disengaged. (Curiously, in presenting such dispiriting numbers, Gallup headlined its press release: Despite the Downturn, Employees Remain Engaged. Huh?)

You might wonder about the variability. Part of it depends on the methodology of the research, and part of it depends on the loose definition of engagement. Still, the core of the problem is plain: Companies are paying people to work, and all too many people (38 percent or 79 percent in the Towers Perrin study, 18 percent or 72 percent in the Gallup study) are doing only enough to get by.

To my thinking, that just isn’t good enough. It isn’t even close.

 

By the Numbers: Employee Satisfaction Continues to Plummet

By the Numbers is a weekly feature presenting business data that is noteworthy, alarming, widely misunderstood or misinterpreted, or otherwise deserving of explanation, comment, or clarification. We accompany it with thought-provoking questions or commentary for reflection and discussion. It usually appears on Monday.

Since its inception last summer, By the Numbers has explored issues of employee engagement, organizational culture, information overload, trust in business, strategic communication, job satisfaction, nonverbal communication, and fear in the workplace, among others.

Job satisfaction in the United States is continuing a decline going back more than two decades, a new study has found. “Americans of all ages and income brackets continue to grow increasingly unhappy at work, [in] a long-term trend that should be a red flag to employers,” said the sponsor of the study, the Conference Board.

Of 5,000 people contacted for the study, only 45 percent said they were satisfied with their jobs. That is down from 61 percent in 1987.

"While one in 10 Americans is now unemployed, their working compatriots of all ages and incomes continue to grow increasingly unhappy," says Lynn Franco, director of the Consumer Research Center of The Conference Board. "Through both economic boom and bust during the past two decades, our job satisfaction numbers have shown a consistent downward trend."

According to the study, no demographic cohort (age, region, etc.) is an exception. In fact, American workers under 25 express the highest level of dissatisfaction ever recorded by the survey for that age group.

"The downward trend in job satisfaction could spell trouble for the overall engagement of U.S. employees and ultimately employee productivity," adds Franco.

As you reflect on this data, you may wish to ask yourself:

• What exactly is going on here?
  
  
• In this economy, shouldn’t people be happy just to have a job?
  
  
• What can possibly account for this trend over more than 20 years?
  
  
• What are the consequences of its continuation?
  
  
• What can companies do to turn it around?

 

By the Numbers: Off-Hours Connectivity

 

By the Numbers is a weekly feature presenting business data that is noteworthy, alarming, widely misunderstood or misinterpreted, or otherwise deserving of explanation, comment, or clarification. We accompany it with thought-provoking questions or commentary for reflection and discussion. It usually appears on Monday.

Since its inception last summer, By the Numbers has explored strategic communication, quality, job satisfaction, information overload, employee engagement, trust in business, nonverbal communication, and fear in the workplace, among others.

Today we take a look at technology and off-hours connectivity, a relevant subject during the holidays, when so many people take time off from work. (Please note that this column is on vacation for two weeks beginning on December 19. By the Numbers will return on January 4.)

 

According to a new study by Harris Interactive and sponsored by Intel Corporation, 55 percent of Americans believe that business today demands constant connectivity by mobile devices. If that means taking a laptop on vacation or answering a call from the office during a meal, so be it.

Some managers and professionals have always been tethered to their office. A typical plant manager, obstetrician, or firefighter lives with the prospect of being called at inconvenient times. For the rest of us, the last decade has been an adjustment.

The same survey found that 80 percent of U.S. adults believe that society has tacit expectations and boundaries for the use of mobile technology in social situations, and almost as many, 69 percent, believe that violating those standards is unacceptable.

Some questions to consider:

• What expectations or guidelines does your team have for off-hours connectivity?

• Are any times sacrosanct, protected from interruption?

• How do you treat personal vacations, weekends, and holidays?

• Is there an expectation of a work-life balance in your organization, or is that just a myth?

 

By the Numbers: Communication and the Bottom Line

By the Numbers is a weekly feature presenting business data that is noteworthy, alarming, widely misunderstood or misinterpreted, or otherwise deserving of explanation, comment, or clarification. We accompany it with thought-provoking questions or commentary for reflection and discussion. It usually appears on Monday.

Since its inception last summer, By the Numbers has explored issues of quality, job satisfaction, information overload, employee engagement, trust in business, nonverbal communication, and fear in the workplace, among others.

Today we take a look at data on organizational communication and economic performance.

According to a new study by Watson Wyatt Worldwide, effective employee communication is such a powerful driver of employee engagement that it is a leading indicator of economic performance. Companies that are highly effective communicators had 47 percent higher total returns to shareholders over the last five years compared with firms that are the least effective communicators.

As you reflect on this, ask yourself:

• How much do ground-level workers in your organization know about the competitive situation and strategy?

• What does your organization do to train managers for their role and responsibilities in communication?

• What are the expectations on communication for managers and supervisors?

• What excuses does your organization make around communication?

By the Numbers: U.S. Financial Companies Inspire Little Trust

By the Numbers is a weekly feature presenting business data that is noteworthy, alarming, widely misunderstood or misinterpreted, or otherwise deserving of explanation, comment, or clarification. We accompany it with thought-provoking questions or commentary for reflection and discussion. It usually appears on Monday.

Thus far, By the Numbers has explored issues of quality, job satisfaction, information overload, employee engagement, trust in business, nonverbal communication, and fear in the workplace, among others.

Returning today from Thanksgiving break, we take a look at levels of trust among Americans in various industries.

U.S.-based financial institutions are apparently not inspiring a great deal of trust. Research by Harris Interactive looked at trust in banks, accounting firms, life-insurance companies, financial planning firms, health-insurance companies, investment firms, mortgage companies, Wall Street, and credit-card companies.

Across all generations and income levels, 58 percent of Americans said none of these industries were “generally honest and trustworthy.”

Distrust was greatest among Generation X respondents (64 percent) and households with income of less than $35,000 (64 percent).

Distrust was least among Generation Y respondents, (also known as Millennials, 52 percent) and households with income between $50,000 and $75,000 (48 percent), but even they showed substantial levels of distrust. (Generation X consists of people born from 1965 to 1976. Generation Y consists of people born from 1977 to 1991).

Plainly the turbulence in the economy and especially in the financial sector accounts for much of the distrust. Still, one can reasonably ask other questions of consequence:

• What is the toll on society and business from such an erosion of trust?

• In your own business, do you see fallout from the erosion of trust in the financial sector?

• If not, are you looking hard enough? Who might have a divergent opinion, and are you talking to them?

• If so, how are you attempting to restore trust? Do you have a plan, and are you executing it?

By the Numbers: More Employees Want to Remain at Their Jobs

 

By the Numbers is a weekly feature presenting business data that is noteworthy, alarming, widely misunderstood or misinterpreted, or otherwise deserving of explanation, comment, or clarification. We accompany it with thought-provoking questions or commentary for reflection and discussion. It usually appears on Monday, although we will be taking next week off for the Thanksgiving holiday here in the United States.

Thus far, By the Numbers has explored issues of quality, job satisfaction, information overload, employee engagement, trust in business, nonverbal communication, and fear in the workplace, among others.

Today we take a look at employee intention to remain with their current employer.

 

In spite of the recent recession, or perhaps because of it, researchers have detected a sharp increase in the percentage of workers who intend to remain at their current place of employment.

According to Minneapolis-based Modern Survey, in August 2008 the figure stood at just 52 percent. It climbed to 57 percent in February 2009 and to 63 percent in September 2009.

As you think about your own team, department, division, or enterprise, ask yourself:

• What do you think accounts for the increase? Is it a function of changes in the denominator, the base of employees still in their jobs after extensive cutbacks? Or does it reflect a real change in attitude?

• How can business leaders, at whatever level, increase the percentages further?

• More fundamentally, other than an offer of better compensation, what causes employees to want to leave a place of employment?

• How important do you think compensation is in the whole mix of factors affecting intent to remain?

• How important do you think an employee's relationship with his or ehr manager is?

 

 

By the Numbers: The Time Suck

 

By the Numbers is a weekly feature presenting business data that is noteworthy, alarming, widely misunderstood or misinterpreted, or otherwise deserving of explanation, comment, or clarification. We accompany it with thought-provoking questions or commentary for reflection and discussion.

Thus far, the data appearing in this feature have explored the challenge of quality, the tradeoff between income and satisfaction on the job, the explosion of information in the media, the role of front-line supervisors in building strategic engagement, the degree of trust that Americans hold in business, the economic impact of employee disengagement in U.S.-based companies, the nature and extent of disengagement in the workplace, the myths around the impact of nonverbal communication, and fear in the workplace.

Today we take a look at unproductive uses of time.

 

According to research by salary.com, 22 percent of American workers report wasting as much as two hours every day at work. Common wasteful activities include personal email, casual conversation with coworkers, online shopping, personal telephone calls, and overlong lunch breaks.

There is a silver lining. Salary.com said the amount of time devoted to time-wasting activities is steadily declining. It has decreased in each of four consecutive surveys.

But even nominally work-related activity can be unproductive. More than half of all workers said they took their own time to fix a colleague’s substandard work, and almost as many pointed to dealing with internal politics and waiting for a colleague to finish his part on a joint project.

As you think about productivity on your team, in your division, or throughout your enterprise, ask yourself these questions:

• What aspects on your work processes are wasteful?

• How do you manage expectations around productivity?

• To what extent do employees just look busy, so as to avoid recrimination, while they are actually not very productive?

• How much time does bureaucracy consume—filling out forms, standing in line, waiting for inspections and approvals, looking up official procedures, deciphering unclear instructions, and so forth?

• Would you have a more productive and more efficient workplace if more decisions were delegated to a lower level?

 

 

By the Numbers: The Tradeoff Between Income and Job Satisfaction

Two months ago we introduced a weekly feature, By the Numbers, which leads off each week (or most weeks, anyway) with a relevant statistic that is noteworthy, alarming, misunderstood or misinterpreted, or otherwise deserving of explanation, comment, or clarification. We accompany it with thought-provoking questions or commentary for reflection and discussion.

Thus far, the data appearing in this feature have explored the explosion of information in the media, the role of front-line supervisors in building strategic engagement, the degree of trust that Americans hold in business, the extent of candor and honesty in supervisory communication, the economic impact of employee disengagement in U.S.-based companies, the nature of disengagement in the workplace, the frequency of projects that fail, the link between employee disengagement and absenteeism, the myths around the impact of nonverbal communication, and the fear of recrimination in the workplace.

Today we examine public opinion on tradeoff between income and satisfaction on the job.

According to research by Frank I. Luntz that appears in his new book, What Americans Really Want . . . Really: The Truth About Our Hopes, Dreams, and Fears, Americans overwhelmingly prefer job satisfaction to economic prosperity.

Some 84 percent of Americans say they would prefer making “a lot less money” in a job they love to the converse. Only 16 percent of Americans say they would prefer making “a lot more money” in a job they hate.

As you reflect on this, consider these questions:

• What correlation, if any, do you see between job satisfaction and the execution of a business strategy?

• How important do you believe job satisfaction is to customer satisfaction?

• In your position and role, what can you do now to leverage the importance of job satisfaction?

• What have you done recently?

• How has the economy compounded the difficulty of ensuring job satisfaction?

• What steps can you take to improve job satisfaction in spite of a lackluster economy?

By the Numbers: The Information Glut

Two months ago we introduced a weekly feature, By the Numbers, which leads off each week (or most weeks, anyway) with a relevant statistic that is noteworthy, alarming, misunderstood or misinterpreted, or otherwise deserving of explanation, comment, or clarification. We accompany it with thought-provoking questions or commentary for reflection and discussion.

Thus far the data appearing in this feature have explored the role of front-line supervisors in building strategic engagement, the degree of trust that Americans hold in business, the extent of candor and honesty in supervisory communication, the economic impact of employee disengagement in U.S.-based companies, the degree of disengagement in the workplace, the frequency of projects that fail, the link between employee disengagement and absenteeism, the myths around the impact of nonverbal communication, and the fear of recrimination in the workplace.

Today we examine the phenomenal increase of data itself in the business environment.

According to Data Smog: Surviving the Information Glut by David Shenk, more than 3,000 discrete messages descend on each of us every day. A single message may be anything from an item in the news to a television or radio commercial to an email to a newspaper editorial to a whispered intimacy by that special someone.

These messages account for more than 1,000,000 words—the equivalent of twelve to fifteen book-length novels—per week.

Most alarming of all, Data Smog was published in 1997, before the explosion of email and spam!

As you reflect on this data, ask yourself:

• What does this deluge of data mean for executing a business strategy?

• What does it mean for creating relationships of mutual trust, dignity, respect, and interdependence?

• How does such a "fire hose" of data affect a quest for greater focus in the workplace?

• What, if anything, can you do to mitigate its effects?

• How, if at all, can you use it to your advantage?

By the Numbers: Supervisors are the No. 1 Driver of Engagement

Two months ago we introduced a weekly feature, By the Numbers, which leads off each week (or most weeks, anyway) with a relevant statistic that is noteworthy, alarming, misunderstood or misinterpreted, or otherwise deserving of explanation, comment, or clarification. We accompany it with thought-provoking questions or commentary for reflection and discussion.

To date we have explored the degree of trust that Americans hold in business (scroll down to last week’s post on October 5), the lack of candor and honesty in supervisory communication (September 28), the economic impact of employee disengagement in U.S.-based companies (see September 21), the extent of disengagement in the workplace (September 14), the frequency of projects that fail (August 31), the link between employee disengagement and absenteeism (August 24), the myths around the impact of nonverbal communication (August 17), and the fear of recrimination in the workplace (August 10).

Today we explore the role of front-line supervisors in building strategic engagement.

A truism in the human resources profession is that people come to work a company but leave because of a manager or supervisor. That appears borne out by data. According to research by the British firm Melcrum, front-line supervisors drive fully 25 percent of all engagement. That makes supervisors the No. 1 driver of engagement. Nothing else accounts for more than supervisors.

Here are some questions to think about and discuss:

• How is engagement different from—and more important than—morale, alignment, or commitment?

• What would full engagement of your people look like, sound like, and feel like?

• How close to that are you now?

• What is this gap costing you in terms of missed opportunities? Market share? Revenue? Profitability? Valuation?

• What accountabilities do you have in place for front-line supervisors? Do any address engagement? How are you measuring it?

• What specific steps has your organization taken this year to support front-line supervisors?

• What is the ROI on that investment?

Not surprisingly, our service package includes planning and training for building employee engagement through the front line. Few other investments affect profitability more directly. Call us at +1-847-247-2241 for a complimentary assessment.

By the Numbers: Trust and Distrust in Business

Two months ago we introduced a weekly feature, By the Numbers, which leads off each week (or most weeks, anyway). It presents a statistic that is noteworthy, alarming, misunderstood or misinterpreted, or otherwise deserving of explanation, comment, or clarification. We accompany it with thought-provoking questions or commentary for reflection and discussion.

To date we have explored the lack of candor and honesty in supervisory communication (scroll down to last week’s post on September 28), the economic impact of employee disengagement in U.S.-based companies (see September 21), the extent of disengagement in the workplace (September 14), the frequency of projects that fail (August 31), the link between employee disengagement and absenteeism (August 24), the myths around the impact of nonverbal communication (August 17), and the fear of recrimination in the workplace (August 10).

Today we explore the degree of trust that Americans hold in business.

According to research by Abt SRBI Public Affairs and published in Time magazine, 49 percent of Americans agree that businesses will make socially responsible decisions without the government telling them what to do. A slightly smaller share, 42 percent, believe the opposite, that businesses cannot be trusted to make socially responsible decisions, and that it’s up to the government to tell them what to do. The remainder were undecided or chose not to answer the question.

Here are some questions to consider:

• Do these figures surprise you? How do you interpret them?

• Do you believe they represent entrenched social, economic, and political perspectives? Can they be changed?

• What accounts for the distrust in business?

• Can you recall any well-publicized cases in which business decisions reinforced the perception of trust?

• Can you recall any well-publicized cases in which business decisions reinforced the perception of distrust?

• Do you think certain industries are to blame for distrust in business? Are other industries comparatively angelic?

• How does distrust affect your business?

• What do you think are the costs of distrust in business? Can you put a dollar figure on it?

• What can good companies do to move the needle in a favorable direction?

Feel free to respond to these questions by leaving a comment. Comments are subject to review by the blog’s editor, who may edit them for grammar and clarity and may leave a response of his own. Comments with abusive, promotional, or profane language will not be published.

By the Numbers: Front-Line Supervisors Fail to Communicate

About a month ago we introduced a weekly feature, By the Numbers. We start off each week (or most weeks, anyway) with a statistic that is noteworthy, alarming, misunderstood or misinterpreted, or otherwise deserving of explanation, comment, or clarification. We accompany it with thought-provoking questions or commentary for reflection and discussion.

To date we have explored the economic impact of employee disengagement in U.S.-based companies (scroll down to the September 21 post), the extent of disengagement in the workplace (September 14), the frequency of projects that fail (August 31), the link between employee disengagement and absenteeism (August 24), the myths around the impact of nonverbal communication (August 17), and the fear of recrimination in the workplace (August 10).

Today we explore the lack of candor and honesty in supervisory communication.

Probably most companies still rely on the front-line manager or supervisor as their mouthpiece in the workplace. In those companies, the supervisor is supposed to convey key strategic information and messages to employees who do the work.

We will return to the question of whether that is the most appropriate role for front-line supervisors in the 21st century, with the ubiquity of communication by BlackBerry, text, Twitter, and good old-fashioned email. Today, far more and far faster than in the 1990s and before, electronic communication reaches everyone in an organization by leak and by rumor. (Those of you who participated in my webinar last Thursday know that I have a perspective on this issue. We’ll come back to it here in Minding Gaps in a few days.)

For now, let’s concentrate on how well front-line supervisors communicate. They appear to need some help. According to research by Towers Perrin, only 38 percent of employees of global corporations say their managers communicate openly and honestly. As for the other 62 percent, we can only speculate.

It’s hard to imagine that employers or the managers in question would agree with that perception, but communication, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. It is the listener’s judgment that counts. If the listener perceives half-truth or untruth, or if the listener perceives double talk or fast talk, then that is what it is. You have to deal with the perception, because perception is reality.

Here are some questions to frame your thinking on this challenge:

• What roles and responsibilities with respect to communicating business strategy and priorities do managers and supervisors in your organization have?

• What particular skills and competencies are necessary to carry out those roles and responsibilities?

• To what extent does the organization assume those skills and competencies are inherent in anyone with the normal and overall qualifications to work in management?

• To what extent are they, truly?

• What training in strategic communication—that is, the communication of business strategy—is provided to the new front-line manager or supervisor? How well and how often is that training upgraded and renewed?

• What does the training say about clarity and honesty?

• What is the process of support in strategic communication for the front-line manager or supervisor? In particular, how does the organization funnel strategic information to the front line?

• What accountabilities for strategic communication does the front-line manager or supervisor face?

• Does your organization have a review process, involving the people who report to the front-line manager or supervisor, to assess each manager’s and supervisor’s communication of business strategy?

Feel free to respond to these questions by leaving a comment. Comments are subject to review by the blog’s editor, who may edit them for grammar and clarity and may leave a response of his own. Comments with abusive, promotional, or profane language will not be published. 

By the Numbers: The High Cost of Disengagement

About a month ago we introduced a weekly feature, By the Numbers. We start off each week (or most weeks, anyway) with a statistic that is noteworthy, alarming, misunderstood or misinterpreted, or otherwise deserving of explanation, comment, or clarification. We accompany it with thought-provoking questions or commentary for reflection and discussion.

To date we have explored the extent of disengagement in the workplace (scroll down to September 14), the frequency of projects that fail (August 31), the link between employee disengagement and absenteeism (August 24), the myths around the impact of nonverbal communication (August 17), and the fear of recrimination in the workplace (August 10).

Today we explore the economic impact of disengagement in U.S.-based companies.

There is no universally accepted definition of workplace engagement. Nor is there an objective, standardized process for identifying it or measuring it.

However, there is a common, if casual, sense that full workplace engagement reflects a high degree of focus and passion for one’s work and for the patrons and stakeholders of one’s employer. As regular readers know, I add curiosity and courage to the recipe.

When we speak of disengagement, we’re simply referring to the opposite of all this. If the measurement of engagement is imperfect, the typical results are not strikingly at odds with intuition. In fact, most employees at U.S.-based companies are disengaged, in key respects.

Disengagement takes many forms, and it has many costs. It can appear as easy distraction from duty. It can be a blind eye to defects in a product or a service that cause customers to flee to competitors. It can be inattention to safety precautions that leads to workplace injuries and even fatalities. It can be laxity on procedures that result in all kinds of problems. It can be frequent tardiness or absenteeism.

It can also be the use of texting or email or telephone as self-defeating efforts at multitasking. Or it can be the use of alcohol or illicit drugs before work or even on the job. More commonly, it can be the lack of intense focus. Often it looks and sounds like the retreat from asking a critical question or offering up vital information from a production line or a service detail.

To begin getting a handle on all that, let’s try calculating the cost of one aspect of disengagement:  physical absenteeism alone, in the United States alone. (We’ll leave emotional, social, and intellectual absenteeism for later, and we’ll let our offshore readers run their own numbers.) For starters, we can use the incremental 4.05 more days of work missed by disengaged employees per year (scroll down to our August 24 post), and we can assume a work year of 240 days after vacation, weekends, and excused absences. We can also plug in the median wage or salary paid to U.S. workers ($53,483 for 2008, the most recent year for which data is available). That gives us a figure of $902 per disengaged employee for physical absenteeism.

(In the event you doubt the figure of 4.05 more days missed by disengaged employees, remind yourself that engaged employees have few if any unexcused absences from work. They want to be at work.)

Next, taking at face value the broad estimates of disengagement offered by well-regarded consulting firms like Towers Perrin and survey research concerns like Gallup, we can figure that between 56 and 72 percent of employees at U.S.-based companies are not fully engaged in their work. We’ll use the midpoint 64 percent, to determine the number of disengaged employees in the non-farm private sector, which totals a little more than 130,000,000. Do the arithmetic, and you reach a total cost of a little over $75 billion per year—for physical absenteeism alone. That inefficiency comes straight off the bottom line.

When you add in other forms and consequences of disengagement—everything from ignoring product defects in a manufacturing plant to neglecting customers in a retail environment—you have vastly greater figures. Many estimates put the total cost of disengagement at between $300 billion and $350 billion per year. That’s somewhere between 2.1 and 2.5 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product.

As a consultant who sees the inside of many companies, I find that many management teams wring their hands over disengagement but do little or nothing about it, more or less like the weather. Yet there are simple, straightforward actions that any management team can take to improve workplace engagement. High-performing companies have a small fraction of the disengaged employees that low-performing companies routinely tolerate. As always, the kind of organization you get is the kind of organization you probably deserve.

Here are some questions to think about:

• Does the figure of 2.1 to 2.5 percent of GDP strike you as realistic? Too high? Too low?

• As a collaborative exercise, explore with other managers the relative level of engagement and disengagement in your organization: the enterprise, a division, a site, or a team. Try to put a percentage on it.

• If you apply that percentage to the revenue stream of your own organization, what is the loss in dollars per year attributable to disengagement?

• How much of it do you think is recoverable?

• Disengagement has many root causes, which vary from organization to organization. What do you think explains most of it in your own organization? How much of it can be laid at your own doorstep?

• What are you doing to change the situation?