Is change management more about change of management?

Employee empowerment starts with being an exemplary leader. An exemplary leader let’s go of the control that came with his/her position in the management: the power to decide; and relinquishing the power to decide into the very hands of one’s “subordinates” is called delegating, whereas no delegating in most cases, in our day and age, leads to change of management.

Smothering the decision-making power by closely guarding it, will reveal the insecurities of the manager, who has all to gain by becoming a good leader, but how many managers really do believe in that? How many potential leaders lose their potential by wanting to “do things right, rather than doing the right thing”, in the unforgettable words of Drucker (2001).

So we have seen that change management, employee empowerment, organisational communication, branding and reputation, leadership and much, much more are a lot more interdependent than it would seem on the surface. What’s more, one just has to add the electronic communication facet to it all, and today’s manager’s seat feels much more like a fighter pilot’s seat in the middle of war, in enemy territory than much else!

Childers (2015) cited the well known adage, “the more things change, the more they remain the same”, in her article before going on to concede to the simple fact that realising the truth of that statement is “not a happy thought for a board of directors or an association looking to change (…) management firm.”  The author then goes on to szggest three aspects of change management that are fundamental, she says, to the change being potentially, and decisively positive. The three points are:

– Begin at the beginning;

– Work the details;

– Red flags and Deal breakers. (Ibid)

That said, those are aspects that one must bear in mind whilst looking to change the management. But what should one do to avoid things from slipping down to such depths and from having to take such drastic actions at a substantial expense to all parties involved, without the guarantee that the devil you don’t yet know is better or worse than the one you are so eager to get rid of!

Take a look at this article about Namibian Railways and you will find that this novel idea of employee empowerment seems to start on the wrong foot. The unions seem to be protecting the employees’ (and their own interests) by ensuring that they remain employed by the organisation, whereas the employer is trying to turn them into independent/free lancing service providers who will not be on their payroll and allow them to invest the funds elsewhere.

Shirking responsibility or ensuring ones own subsistence is by far not the way to exemplify oneself as a leader. Without leadership, change management will also be faced with resistance and if views are diametrically opposed, negotiations become that much more difficult. Is a mediator required? The question is: are all concerned parties prepared to selflessly mediate in the best interest of the people they employ and represent? If the answer is yes, at the very risk of the management having to hand over the reins of power to their employees of today, or the representing unions being made extinct due to the adoption of their members of the entrepreneurial solution put forward by TransNamib, then the need for mediation will itself become extinct.

In this article, Dwyer (2015), submits six preconditions which will contribute to the success of a change (programme/ process).  He enumerates them as follows:

– The management and the workforce must accept that change is required and that it should be correctly managed, communicated and all the stakeholding parties must be involved by empathic persuasion rather than coercion.

– Being aware that the change they will undergo is going to affect them. The author points out “Never forget the greatest motivational tool is to be able to respond to the question, “What’s in it for ME?”  For most individuals, motivation is about achievement, recognition, the work itself, responsibility, advancement and personal growth.” and encourages, “the change message address the motivational opportunities.”

– The change message must be announced from the very early stages of the decision being taken and then be repeated very often for all of it’s parts to sink-in.

– Honesty and project management techniques are two of the pillars that the success of any change depends on.

– The change leadership must not only have all the qualities to satisfy the above, but must also be motivated themselves to make sure that they carry out to the end what they set out to do initially and to make sure that all that was promised during the course of the change be duly given.

And when it comes to “Employee Empowerment Zones” as Rauner, the Governor of the American State of Illinois put it, he is not really far from what TransNamib was suggesting for their workforce.  No matter how one goes about it, where it goets suggested, and what name one gives it, the most fundamental objective of such proposals remains to “save money” – from going to the workforce, and redirecting it into the pockets of the handful of decision-making stakeholders.

In all cases of change, there is resistance. In some cases, say in a country like Luxembourg, it will be easier to implement at the national level by breaking it down into local subsections and making the change look like a privilege. I know what you are thinking: I remember my parents doing that with my siblings and me! If you are a parent, you know that you did have to resort to it at some point…with more or less success. In a city like London, or in Illinois or even in Namibia, it might seem a tad more difficult to say the least.

Here’s an example of resistance in change mamagement: Greenwich Time report that “even Town Hall cannot fight Town Hall” as it exposes the difficulties the paper-driven administration is having as it tries to carve a more technological, less paper-driven and decidedly what seems to be like a disgruntling process.

Now there were two approaches in implementing such change: you either force it down the throat of those who will have to undergo change and face the music when their time comes, or you take the project management approach and let the various processes take their course, whilst explaining why the change is good and answering the questions with patience and self-control. Thus, you also dilute the disgruntlement over a longer period by letting new habits replace old ones and dissolving the rumble caused by change resisters into the grind of “positive communication”. What is positive communication, you might ask? That will be answered a little further below.

Whilst industrial giants like Airbus and HP are busy putting themselves through a change at the management level, “Prowers Medical Center tackled a variety of items related to patient care and expansion” (Frost, 2015), it also underwent a huge change programme in 2014, but the CEO of the organisation put employee empowerment, being inspired from the book The Florence Prescription by Joe Tye as “the number one” achievement. The author of the book visited the hospital during the course of the change, and shared his knowledge as to the purpose of the hospital, each employee’s role and how they could take it’s ownership.

From this example to empowerment, it takes only a small jump, I thnk. With that in mind, Kurane (2015), suggests a mneumonic technique to remember the 5 ways he prescibes for empowering employees – or anyone for that matter. In my opinion, empowering is like peeling an orange: there is an ideal place, and it depends on what you want to achieve. For a bare minimum effort, or as a newbie, you will start anywhere and get the fruit out; the more experienced practitioner of the art will challenge himself – or herself, and share the collected/ analysed data. The author’s five-point empowerment mantra is, “Purpose, Ownership, Wins, Entrust and Recognition” (Ibid). Look at it carefully, and you will quickly find POWER in the formula.

Purpose: The purpose of change is usually clear to those who are in it’s favour, but it is invariably missed by those who resist it. Rather than confronting them with the reasons that brought about change, it is easier to get their buy-in by advocating it’s benefits. In doing most things, the involved parties can be persuaded and inspired to join if they know “what’s in it for them” rather than what they can bring to the effort. They know best what they can bring; they also know that unless they get something in ecvhange of their efforts, the extent of their participation will, at most,  be minimalistic. Buy in of all parties can be achieved by proper, positive communication. Positive communication, at any level, I have found, requires:

– active listening,

– positive language,

– concise language,

– specific message,

– empathetic attitude,

– taking of responsibility,, and

– being helpful.

In sum, change, when brought about, must be properly managed with communicational processes that do not reflect the same attitude that caused it to come about.  As governments have to govern well at the risk of seeing their adversaries being voted into power, managements have to manage well at the risk of being confronted with change. Communication is as important to avoid change as it is during or even after change take place; internal communication can be compared to the spine that holds the segments of an orange together, whereas the peel can be seen as the external communication of an organisation.

Reference:

Childers.A.,(2015),”Hiring New Management”, The Cooperator – The Co-op & Condo Monthly, Yale Robbins, Inc, New York, USA, available at http://cooperator.com/articles/2878/1/Hiring-New-Management/Page1.html accessed on 30.1.2015

Drucker.P.,(2001),”The Essential Drucker”,PerfectBound, Harper-Collims Publications, USA available at https://familiapinto.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/drucker-peter-f1-the-essential-drucker.pdf accessed on 30.1.2015

Dwyer,K,(2015),”6 steps to managing change in your business”,Mortgage Broker News.ca – Key Media Pty Ltd, available at http://www.mortgagebrokernews.ca/news/6-steps-to-managing-change-in-your-business-187576.aspx accessed on 30.1.2015

Frost,C.,(2015),”PMC moves forward”, Lamar Ledger, Colorado, USA available at http://www.lamarledger.com/ci_27277447/pmc-moves-forward accessed on 4.2.2015

Kurane, D.,(2015),”Five ways to empower your employees”,Standard Group, India available at http://zeenews.india.com/news/education/five-ways-to-empower-your-employees_1533859.html

 

 

Regulating employee empowerment … really !?!

Of late, employee empowerment is being used more and more as some sort of a synonym of labour law. The Democrats in USA have introduced a bill to have labour rights constitutionally recognised. On a completely different front, someone once told me, “if you feel that you are losing an argument, start correcting the grammar of your adversary”. One author has added “explaining terminology” to that approach.  Whilst the authors of the articles New Bill Defines Labour Rights as Civil Rights, Congressman Wants to Make Unionisation a Civil Right does inform the reader by reporting political events taking place in a bid to “give labour law additional heft” (Ellison, 2014), the terminology seems to be taking a whole new meaning in it’s political context as compared to the more widely known, albeit rather hazy notions, no thanks to such fads as events of this ilk bring to the forth.

Eidlin (2014) on the other hand, has taken on a more measured approach in his bid to explain the pros and cons of the so-called “Employee Empowerment Bill”. He points out that “the problem is two-fold” in that “legal strategies (…) displace the conflict between workers and employers from an organising context where workers play a leading role and build their own power to a legal one where workers must rely on experts to fight for them.” and goes on to demonstrate “it’s inability to prevent employers’ from interfering with workers’ decision to unionise” but rather “reinforce the very dynamics that have allowed employers to turn labour law in their (own) favour”.

Employee empowerment, in my view, occurs within the organisation and is the result of the management and workforce communicating effectively and working together. This collaboration between the two traditional adversaries unquestionably favours a marked improvement in the efficiency and efficacy of the organisation’s operations, which in turn has a positive impact on the organisation’s ROI and profit.

That said, to improve communication, one has to audit it first to know what is good and should be kept and what is not, and should be improved. Such subtle changes can also bring about a marked improvement in the operations on the one hand, thereby (and almost automatically) weeding out the ineffective processes of the organisation. However, it must also be said that one of the prerequisites of employee empowerment is a mutual goodwill on behalf of both parties: the management and the workforce. The use of force or wielding power or holding the other in contempt is by far the worst manner in which to seek the organisation’s progress. Quite to the contrary, such short-sighted behaviour will very probably lead to it’s downfall by way of falling profits and the resulting “human resource streamlining” that is the management’s usual response.

When Risher (2014) wrote his article It’s Time to Focus on Empowerment and Recognition, he recognises that “engagement and satisfaction are not the same (…) Satisfied is not the same as satisfaction.” The author then explains that each researcher has a different take on what engagement is. Now engagement is directly proportional to empowerment, which entails employees knowing what’s expected, what they can expect, that they are working on something important and related to their employer’s mission, and that their work effort is valued.”

In one of the economic giants of the future and talent and population giants of today, India voted it’s most admired organisations based on “two criteria in particular: corporate governance and social impact.” (Ganesan, 2014)

In communicating with it’s workforce, the management can broadcast these and messages , and from time to time multicast or unicast them by recognising efforts of a site, a department, a team or even an individual.

My years of experience have taught me that communication requires from both all involved stakeholders to talk to each other rather than talking at or about each other. If all efforts have failed, then legal and legislative experts have also to realise that just like communication or financial experts can not come up with the best laws, legal experts cannot be at the source of the best adapted communicational or financial solutions. To get workforce and management communicating with each other; as in most other cases in society, regulating generally leads to people seeking (and often, finding) loopholes. It might do your statistical ego a world of good but may not reflect the whole picture. Employee empowerment, employee engagement, employee satisfaction and employee recognition should be left in the hands of individual organisations to overcome as best they come to terms with each other, whilst recognising that each one of the parties needs the other to exist. And to conclude let me quote the unforgettable words attributed to one of the forefathers of modern America, Abraham Lincoln: “You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time”, which, in my view,  goes hand-in-hand with “We all make choices, but in the end, our choices make us.” (Ken Levine). 

Enough said!

Reference:

B. Eidlin (2014), “Latest Pro-Labour Reform Proposal Might Actually Undermine Labour”, Truthout, available at http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/25284-latest-pro-labor-reform-proposal-might-actually-undermine-labor, seen on 6.8.2014

K. Ellison (2014) in B. Vail (2014), “New Bill Defines Labour Rights as Civil rights, In These Times, Institute for Public Affairs, Chicago, USA

S. Ganesan (2014), “ITC, L&T, HUL: India’s most admired companies”,  PTI,  available at http://zeenews.india.com/business/news/companies/itc-landt-hul-indias-most-admired-companies_105568.html viewed on 22.8.2014

K. Levine (n.d.), available from http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/350677.Ken_Levine viewed on 24.8.2014

 

How empowered does an employee feel as an owner?

Can an employee be empowered to the point of acting as the owner of an organisation? Is empowerment all about relinquishing control? If not, how can the leaders of the organisation actually keep the power whilst empowering the subordinates?

Holmes (2013) touches on the subject somewhat squarely by alluding to “training employees to take full advantage of new sales opportunities” So in essence, the investment is manifold in that the employer provides the training, invests in the time of his employees that undergo the training, and what goes without saying, will incentivise any efforts made by sales force to up the sales figures’ and market share ante. All of it, at the very risk of seeing them walk away to the competition and employ his training to his own detriment.

As such, if the employer does make them aware of their responsibilities (empower, I’m told), by treating the company as their own, but fails to make them feel that they are running their own company and has them running to him better job involvement, suggestion to improve or even every operational decision, give-away, then the employee will be right to feel disinherited by his employer who only feigns to adopt the leadership path. At the advent of the first best opportunity beyond the known pastures of the organisation, and into the greener pastures of the outside world, the employee is bound to seize it and run with renewed energy, albeit a more circumspect approach.

So you might well ask, what stops employers and managers from empowering their subordinates? Because most of them have only thought of it without really considering it any more seriously. Bowen and Lawler III (1994:422) point out “Many lessons have been learned in manufacturing about how to best use quality, circles, enriched jobs, and so on. And the added good news is that many service businesses are ideally suited to applying and refining these lessons.”

Let us just hope that current managers, and employers of service businesses, especially multisite ones, will be able to take ownership of the situation and adapt empowering approaches to their specific needs on the one hand, but that there will be studies carried out to get the information out into the world to prove that employee empowerment, employed correctly, will bring unexpected results with itself.

Can empowerment be quantified? If so, how much empowerment is good, how much is satisfactory and how much is insufficient? If, however, it cannot be quantified, how does one then go about getting dependable and objective data from a field of subjective practices amongst others?

Quantifying employee empowerment is best possible within the context of its application to a business, a site or a department. Let me explain: if employee turnover was the issue that triggered the measures, then one can evaluate the reduction of employee turnover. If employee empowerment was introduced to improve sales figures, then either the sales team needed to be empowered with added responsibilities but also the authority to decide what works best for each salesperson. The diversity of approaches will bring not only a better understanding through varied market analyses which are all going to be based on individual analytics. If, on the other hand, the empowerment was introduced to improve communication within the organisation, various tools can allow a very objective evaluation of intra-organisational communication

Reference:

D.E. Bowen and E.E. Lawler III (1994), “The empowerment of service workers: what, why, how and when”, The training and development Sourcebook, Ed. C. E. Schreiner, Human Resource Development Press Inc. Massachusets, USA, available at http://www.google.lu/books?hl=en&lr=&id=vnyFFWL0loEC&oi=fnd&pg=PA413&dq=employee+empowerment,+profit&ots=ag_EOFicdw&sig=T6MndRsvcdwgsz7ZvbpcCETaan4&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=employee%20empowerment%2C%20profit&f=false accessed on 1.4.2014

C. Holmes (2013), “Growth coaching must balance technology with employee empowerment”, the Chet Holmes Method, availabe at http://www.chetholmes.com/tips-and-advice/?p=29#sthash.EvRtCBvq.dpuf accessed on 1.1.2014

Organisational Communication / Corporate Communication – The Five Questions: when? why? what? where? how?

Corporate communication and organisational communication are sometimes interchangeably used, as is the case with van Riel and Fornbrun (2007:14) who stated, “we propose the concept of corporate communication as an integrative communication structure linking stakeholders to the organisation” but also state van Riel and Fornbrun (2007:13), “Not all of the communications in an organisation are work-related, nor are they necessarily relevant to fulfilling organisational objectives.”

Are Corporate Communication and Business Philosophy really only oxymorons? Goodman (1994:4) points out, “organisations of all sorts and sizes which are committed to communicating with their employees have a communicational philosophy.”

Hargie and Tourish (2009:25) also ask a fundamental question in business ethics (another oxymoron?), “what can be gained from a proactive focus on communication, both internally and externally (…) when staff are treated as dispensable liability, customers as little more than a damned nuisance and suppliers as potential industrial spies?”

As with most things in life, when a change has to be brought about within an organisation, one has to be prepared to be confronted with opposition to such change. Lets not forget the adage,”better the devil you know than the one you don’t.”

However, it is also a known fact that if an organisation continues to progress with the above cited facts and sayings, then it is, sooner or later, going to run into troublesome times which are going to be directly

proportional to the size of the company and the amount of time that such beliefs are put to practice.

Barker and Angelopulo (2006:122) point out, “Without exception, changes in the external environment(s) necessarily require changes in the internal environment(s) of an organisation, thus having a direct bearing (positive or negative) on the communication networks with employees.”

So we can safely deduce that as we evolve in time, the outside environment of an organisation evolves too, and the inside of the organisation has to evolve too. The best way for an organisation to keep evolving with the times and to make sure that there won’t be any “black sheep” or “spin off” organisations, the communication has to be up to date and in tune with the times.

Another aspect that affects the communication and can be tantamount to the organisation’s progress is the multicultural aspect of it’s human resources. As more and more multinational companies take over or run out local businesses, locals are in a constant tussle with executives out to preach the multinational’s gospel which originate from the headquarters.

We have also to consider, as Blundel and Ipolito (2008:43) point out, “the danger of relying on shorthand, stereotypical accounts of cultures that ignore local and individual-level factors and the reality that cultures are  dynamic and constantly changing.”

As a result, we now not only have times to evolve with but dynamic cultures to adapt to. This means that communication has to have a common denominator – the message – as the words are adapted to the environment’s times and culture.

“Designing the workplaces have placed more emphasis on the technical systems, the tools, techniques, procedures and devices used by the workforce and have tended to overlook opportunities to redesign technologies to meet the needs of people” argue (Pasmore, Francis, Haldemann and Shani, 1982; Goodman, 1994:45).

In conclusion, we can say that:

– corporate communication and organisational communication as a whole should be proactive, that it has to evolve with the times, the environment and the oirganisation’s dynamic culture as its demographics and human resources evolve, and in continuing with this last point, that technologies should be adapted to the people who use them rather than trying to adapt people and their tools to the organisation’s evolving processes.

Reference

Barker,R and Angelopulo,G.,(2006), Integrated Organisational Communication, Juta & Co, Cape Town, RSA, available at http://goo.gl/0z11n accessed September 2011

Blundel,R and Ipolito,K.,(2008),Effective Organisational Communication:Perspectives, Principles, Practices, 3rd ed, Pearson Education, Harlow, UK, available at http://goo.gl/vKABv accessed September 2011

Goodman, M.B.,(1994), Corporate communication: theory and practice, State University New York Press, available at http://goo.gl/hEs8N accessed October 2011

Hargie,O and Tourish,D,(2009),Auditing Organisational Communication: A Handbook of Research,Theory and Practice, Routledge, Hove, UK available at http://goo.gl/SP9Va accessed October 2011

van Riel, C.B.M., and Fornbrun, C.J.,(2007), Essentials of Corporate Communication: implementing practices for effective reputation management, Business and Economics, Routledge, Hove, UK, available at http://goo.gl/ybf4z accessed September 2011

Employee Empowerment – What does it cause? How does it work?

Employee empowerment has been the main subject of the past two posts on this blog and we will not stop at that – although the next one might well be directed at organisational (and/or) corporate communication.

Lets consider the subject at hand: how employee empowerment works, and what does it cause to happen?

For one, in most cases, if the organisation which considers employee empowerment as a measure to progress, it is bound to bring about change and has to manage it..

Thakkar (2011), states that “successful balancing [in an organisation] requires employee trust [and] employee empowerment. The author goes on to define employee empowerment as “giving the employee a reason to be proud of be doing what s/he does” and goes on to point out that “loading employees with responsibility without empowering them is like making them fly without providing them with oxygen”.

If these practices have been known to exist in an organisation, then employee empowerment is going to lead toa radical change, which will originate amongst the employees and needs to be managed as all resources do. If the HR managers of your organisation are confronted with the above-mentioned mistrust or distrust, then they have to undergo training themselves in order to learn  how to manage such a change prior to making it occur on the one hand, and to adapt the processes to the organisation’s needs rather than vice versa as mentioned in a previous contribution.

Communication plays an important part in handling the change. “Ultimately the success of any change effort depends on how effectively the strategy for and the substance of the change is communicated to those who are the targets of change.” (Witherspoon and Wohlert, 1996 in Frahm and Brown (2003:3)

The authors go on to quote other specialists in the field as they state, “within the implementation phases, communication is often a top down sales pitch” (Okumus and Hemington, 1998) which is “argued to lead to cynicism about change” (Reichers, Wanous & Austin, 1997; Wanous, Reichers and Austin, 2000 in Ibid)

Such cynicism has to be overcome in the organisation so as to allow the management with an opportunity to lead by example as they bring about a coherence between that which is ‘broadcast’ to the outside world, that  what is ‘preached’ within the organisation and that what is practised by the ‘preachers’. (Thakkar, 2011). Incoherence is known to be rampant in organisations “where there is a lack of communication between the departments governing the organisation’s internal and external communication policies.” (Motiani, 2010).

Nayab (2011 a) points out that in order “for employees to be given the responsibility, the organisation’s culture  :shares information openly, encourages open communication with regular [constructive] feedback, facilitates leadership by guiding the empowered employee, involve the employees in strategic planning exercises so that  they are aware of the organisation’s vision and objectives, and apply that knowledge to strategic work.”

The other question asked above is, How does employee empowerment work?

Nayah (2011 b) points out that “organisations that engage in providing empowered employees with the means to carry out their work, will gai, thanks to: better employee performance, novel and better adapted ways to overcome operational issues, exploit opportunities and improve products and services.”

As we have seen, employee empowerment requires engagement on behalf of the organisation which wishes to reap its benefits. As in any case, employees only given responsibilities without the necessary resources to carry them out will only end up frustrated and that can only take all persons involved in a downward spiral.

As I  close this section on employee empowerment, I’m reminded of Archimedes Principle which states “an object, immersed in a fluid shall be buoyed by a force equal to that of the fluid displaced by the immersed object.” Similarly, an employee who is empowered and when the organisation is sufficiently flexible to let him act, will reap from the benefit of his work (which can be compared to the buoyancy).

Reference:

Frahm, J. and Brown, K.,(2003), Organisational Change Communication: Lessons from the Public Relations Communication Strategies, ANZCA03 Conference, Brisbane, available at http://www.anzca.net/conferences/anzca03proceedings.html

Motiani, K (2010), A Study of the Correlation between improved Intra- and Inter-Organisational Communication and Operational Efficiency and Efficacy in Luxembourg’s Non-Profit Organisations, University of Liverpool

Nayah, N., (2011 a), Overworked Employees Are not Empowered. Learn Why Here, Bright Hub: Business-Team Building and Empowerment available at http://www.brighthub.com/office/human-resources/articles/123587.aspx

Nayah, N., (2011 b), How Employee Empowerment has pushed Companies Ahead, Bright Hub: Business-Team Building and Empowerment, available at http://www.brighthub.com/office/human-resources/articles/123676.aspx

Thakkar, H., (2011), How to manage change from Employees?, Learning and Development, HR Planning, available at http://www.hrgyaan.com/how-to-manage-change-from-employees/

Resources, what why, which one, and how?

Kumar and Goyal (2011) have stated that “Over the last two decades, the ERP market has grown from strength to strength , and the ERP system has almost become an integral part of any part of any enterprise worth its salt.” The authors then go on to report that “the ERP market is currently about $ 40 billion in total revenue, consistently ranks among the top IT spending priorities for enterprises, and is expected to grow to more than $ 50 billion by 2013.” (Ibid)

With such figures flying around, I, for one, am obviously going to ask some basic questions and share the outcome of my thought-process and research with you in the course of what follows:

– who is spending the money?

– whom is the money being spent on?`

– to what end is the money being spent?

– what exactly is “ERP” (Enterprise Resource Planning) and did it exist previously – in other words, have we not yet realised that this wheel had already been invented and was in use prior to being baptised ERP by some marketing and/or management gurus and/or priests?

– that the ROI is worth the effort seems obvious – I do not see any enterprise “worth its salt” (Ibid) to pick it up from the authors cited above – but then the question is, why has it gained importance today of all other days?

The same authors also quote the Project Management Institute in saying that “70 per cent of all ERP deployment projects fail, are late or go over budget.”

Now, wouldn’t facts such as these not send you raving mad and running amok? I was on the verge of the latter when I was distracted by a more pleasant sight that led me to a rare and brief moment of lucidity in which I asked myself the following question and its subsidiaries as follows::

– why did the ERP deployment fail though?

– is it because the leadership is not qualified enough?

– is it because the ERP deployment was not adapted to the enterprise’s needs?

– is it because, imposed on the resources, they did not understand how, why, when to best use them?

On the other hand, if the enterprises have spent $ 40 billion and are going to increment that spending by a further $ 10 billion, with $ 28 billion being lost thus far, the enterprises are planning a further loss of $ 35 billion by 2013. These facts sent me of my rocker all over again!!!

Another day, another line of thought: if processes as simple as “IDEA Board (Improvement Driven by Employee Action)” (Johnson, 2011) were to be deployed, and the billions of dollars spent on employee empowerment with initiatives of this type, then, not only would the improvements in those organisations’ operational processes be best adapted to themselves, but it would also mean that incoming managers would have to adapt their methods to suit the existing operations rather than twisting the organisation’s operations to suit their needs.

The above reflection would lead anyone worth his/her managerial salt to ask a him/herself a fundamental question: when an organisation employs a manager, is it to manage the resources as it best suits that specific organisation or is the employment based on adapting the organisation to the manager’s modus operandi?

Alleyne (2011) quoted Murray (2011) who shared that, “unless you train your managers and executives, [they] are not going to be able to speak the same language… [or] be able to lead by example… [even] sustain the program.” The author also quoted Beckles (2011) who referred to “the success of the Survey/Feedback/Action program within his company” (Ibid). Through my own experience, I have been able to learn that both of the above are based on efficient measures of communication within the organisation.

Robertson (2011), argues that “When done wrong, it [employee empowerment] can be devastating for both, the business and the workforce.”  In keeping with this train of thought, any financier worth his/her salt will definitely be very hesitant to relinquish any part of his/her control that s/he enjoys. That is the case of most corporate executives who have a lot to lose and not enough in terms of guarantee – as any banker would (re-)act.

As such, we stand confronted with the best interests of the business and it’s operation whilst safeguarding it’s resources versus the stockholders’ interests and the guarantee that they require to get competitive returns on their investment in the organisation.

Barnes (2011), points out “it is (…) fitting to give back to them [employees] what they rightfully deserve, especially those who have become the most loyal to the company.”

Polonsky (2005, 1063-4) defined stakeholders as  individuals or groups thereof who present “three features, namely:

(1) interdependency;

(2) affecting/being affected by the organisation;

(3) the sense of an interest or right in an organisation.”

Therefore, if we group stockholders and employees as stakeholders (as marketers like to label them), then we can deduce that it is in the best interest of the organisation to protect the interests of its investors as well as those of its employees.

While paying dividends to investors is one way of protecting their interests, rightly implemented employee empowerment measures are paramount to protecting the employees’ best interests. Both can be achieved by  means of better communication which will raise the organisation’s credibility amongst its investors and improve its operations carried out by its employees.

These are just two aspects in which better communication can help in improving an organisation’s reputation amongst a more or less random cross-section of its stakeholders..

Reference:

Alleyne, R., (2011), Top Employers share Pearls of Knowledge, The Barbados Advocate, available at http://www.barbadosadvocate.com/newsitem.asp?more=business&NewsID=19543

Barnes, W., (2011), “Encourage Employee Empowerment Through Corporate Gifts”, Management, available at http://articlesbeacon.com/business/management/encourage-employee-empowerment-through-corporate-gifts

Johnson, M., (2011), Lean Leadership and Employee Empowerment, Michigan Tech – Continuous Improvement Blog, available at http://blogs.mtu.edu/improvement/2011/08/08/78/

Kumar, K., and Goyal, A., (2011), Best Practices for Successful ERP System Deployments, Supply Demand Chain Exevutive, available at http://www.sdcexec.com/article/10282391/best-practices-for-successful-erp-system-deployments

Polonsky, M. J.,(2005), Stakeholder thinking in marketing, Business & Economics, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39, Number 9/10, Emerald Group Publishing, available at http://goo.gl/pXjnw

Robertson, T., (2011), Negative Effects of Employee Empowerment, Chron: Small Business, Demand Media, available at http://smallbusiness.chron.com/negative-effects-employee-empowerment-18691.html

Questions about job satisfaction, employee empowerment and communication

Mani (2010, 136) writes that “People are the most important asset of any organisation.” The author then goes on to state that “It is found that factors like stress, job climate, training, supervisor-relationship, employee benefits, job, compensation, employee empowerment, communication and company are the major contributors of employee satisfaction.” (2010, 137) What one usually wonders about when one is at the bottom of the chain in some organisations, especially international ones, is that where do these studies really get carried out? And who participates in them?

I am not questioning the truth in these studies, but just want to underline the fact that there are many more organisations in this world which not only believe in nothing more than financial gain and incrementing dividends for shareholders than the benefit of one and all stakeholders involved in the organisation’s operations.

One cannot deny the fact that politics plays an important role in all multinational organisations in view of the impact they have on a given economy’s unemployment rate, foreign trade balance, currency, stock exchange, and the number of millionaires that it counts over a financial exercise. Now whether politics plays a role in the organisation or is it the other way round hardly makes a difference to the wage-earner of an organisation because one way or the other s/he will invariably  end up paying more taxes over the next financial exercise – lest s/he gets married, procreates and/or pays through his/her nose to charity or stashes money away into a hidden, numbered account in one of the numerous fiscal havens of the world.

Marrelli (2010,9) writes, “A strong sense of the value of one’s daily work facilitates engagements and creates a foundation of high performance.” But how is it inculcated, if not indoctrinated into the employees? In my opinion, it is the reputation of the organisation on the one hand, but also the image of the work that the employees do, which guarantees such feelings. The fact of the mater is that in today’s overly media dependent world, most jobs are linked to an image which leads them to prejudged in the public eye.

According to the author (2010,19), “Non-supervisory employees’ perception of managers and executives are much less positive. They do not believe that their senior leaders are communicating openly and sincerely with them.”

So, if an organisation’s most important resource are the humans who work there, then why the discrepancies so often observed in so many of them? Why do shareholders still have the upper hand even if all management specialists have said and learned and preached that considering stakeholders in a holistic approach as more important than the only group of investors who expect ever-increasing dividends at the end of every financial exercise? Considering that the human resource of an organisation is included amongst the stakeholders, why do they have to continue to “fight for their rights” rather than just be given them – as naturally as investors get their dividends? These and so many more questions need to be answered in today’s society. Satisfactory answers to be found which will be applicable to all organisations of all shapes and sizes, in all fields of business, anywhere in the world.

Reference:

Mani, V., (2010), “Development of Employee Satisfaction Index Scorecard”,European Journal of Social Sciences, Volume 15, Number 1, pp 129 – 139 available at http://www.eurojournals.com/ejss_15_1_12.pdf

Marelli, A., (2010),”Managing for Engagement – Communication, Connection, and Courage”, Diane Publishing, available athttp://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RgPtJXTBQzkC&dq=marrelli+2010+employee+empowerment&lr=&source=gbs_navlinks_s

Inter- and Intra-organisational Communication

Communicate well to serve better: Most issues within and between organisations and/or persons arise due to lack of a suited / suitable communication-strategy/ies within and emanating from them.

Doing the right thing is good, but it is equally (if not more) important for the personnel to know how to go about it, and for the consumer of your goods and services to know how best to benefit from them.

You can react here and/or join me at http://www.chainetwork.net/ to learn more about this and other interesting subjects more or less closely related with Corporate strategy.