Years ago, a student in one of my classes who worked at Wal-Mart said he had heard Sam Walton was coming to his store.
I said to the student, “I understand that Sam Walton likes to open meetings with a Wal-Mart cheer—Give me a W. Give me an A. Give me an L . . . Who is Number one? THE CUSTOMER ALWAYS.”
“Yes. He does,” the student responded.
“What are you going to do when he leads the cheer?”
“I’m going to shout it!” the student beamed.
After seeing employees in a Korean tennis ball factory begin their day with a cheer, Sam Walton introduced the cheer to Wal-Mart associates in 1975 and the ritual continues.
Kristen Senz, writing in The Harvard Gazette, reports that such team-building rituals can create a shared sense that work is more meaningful and help co-workers bond. Although many see company rituals as silly and avoid partaking, these group activities over time can still add meaning to their work.
To encourage rituals in your workplace, Senz suggests that you first check to see what employees are already be doing—lunching together on Friday, celebrating birthdays, and the like. Find things employees enjoy doing together and encourage them.
The answer is, “thirty-six million.”
The question is, “How many employees have quit their jobs in the last nine months?”
Traditionally, the major reason for quitting has been, “I didn’t get along with my supervisor.” However, since the COVID-19 pandemic, according to PEW researchers Parker and Horowitz, the major reasons for the high churn rate have been pay, opportunity, and respect.
There is no doubt the pandemic caused companies to radically shuffle conventional work routines of their employees. Some companies laid off employees as their businesses were shut down. Oher companies quickly learned employees could produce quality work outside of a nine-to-five workday, and they did not have to be onsite to do it.
As the economy recovered, “help wanted” signs appeared everywhere. To entice applicants, some companies were quicker to increase wages and approve flexible, remote working. Like historical accounts of the 1840’s gold rush, employees left in droves to seek these new-found riches and freedoms.
Here is the bad news, according to a Harris Poll survey, only about twenty-five percent of job switchers say they plan to stay. Before climbing over the fence to a greener pasture, it may be beneficial for you to investigate adjustments your current employer intends to make.
“I have eight members on my team and their tasks are different,” a manager said to me. “As we work in a very challenging environment, I require cross training and job rotation for all.”
“So, you wanted to ensure one hundred percent coverage in case you had an unexpected absence?” I asked.
“I think I am about to hear of a disappointment.”
“I am disappointed. Although everyone is very capable and trained, I am not getting reliable performance from all members on all tasks.”
Of course, it is important to have a back up for each task, but it is not realistic to think all team members can perform all tasks reliably. As the Gallup research revealed, even the most basic tasks require some level of talent for consistent performance.
Rather than encouraging promotion or job rotation schemes, the more effective teams assign members to tasks they perform exceptionally well; and they help them grow in those tasks. It is demoralizing to all to insist that a trained member be responsible for tasks they historically perform poorly.
As some have phrased the concept, the more effective leaders “put their aces in their places.”
(Part 7 of 7)
A member of the selection committee described a job candidate as “outstanding with great technical skills.”
When another member raised concerns about the candidate’s ability to fit into their team’s culture, the sponsor replied, “I’m aware she may have appeared aloof and a bit arrogant during the interviews, but I think that was just confidence. Her cognitive test scores are excellent.”
Some members described another candidate as very good technically with a reputation for superior team skills. A member said of the candidate, “She is known for bringing disparate team members together and completing complex projects ahead of schedule.”
While the selection team valued both candidates as top prospects, the debate centered on whether to favor the candidate who had an edge in technical skills or the one who may have been a more effective team player.
While fifty-three percent of participants in my workshops recommend the candidate with the technical edge, seventy-seven percent say most of their employee problems center around lack of team skills.
Be aware, employees are on their very best behavior during selection processes. When two or more candidates possess the necessary technical skills for job performance, I favor selecting the candidate with the better team skills.
(Part 6 of 7)
“Performance appraisals are due next week,” a manager lamented. “Frankly, I’d rather have a root canal.”
More than seventy percent of managers in surveys say they do not like their appraisal process. Most employees report their performance reviews to be stressful with little helpful feedback.
Many companies have eliminated traditional, annual appraisals because they judged their processes to be of little value and may have been harmful.
Still, managers have an obligation to hold up a mirror and give honest performance feedback to their employees. Consider the following suggestions for adding value to appraisals while inducing less stress on yourself and team members.
One, quit complaining about your process and appraisal form. No process/form is perfect.
Two, meet 1:1 with your direct reports monthly to list and discuss last month’s successes and next month’s expectations. Honestly, report what you like and dislike about each person’s performance.
Three, never argue about your assessment. Rather, when a person disagrees, respond with something like, “I have a professional responsibility to give you my honest feedback. I understand you disagree. Please write a note for the file explaining your position.”
Four, encourage growth by developing employees’ strengths; investments in weaknesses provide little return.
(Part 5 of 7)
“What is the best way to improve your team’s performance?” I asked participants in a workshop.
“I hold weekly meetings to review our metrics,” one responded. “Then I zero in things we could have done better.” Other responses included: “training and coaching,” “keep score,” “always look for improvements,” “replace marginal performers.”
The late, legendary basketball coach John Wooden would occasionally eliminate from game films all missed shots, broken plays, defensive lapses, and other mistakes. Players would see only successful efforts. Rather than magnify performance flaws, coach Wooden focused on successes as a way of motivating players to execute effectively.
I’ve asked many work teams if their managers every showed up unexpectedly at their workstations. A typical response is “Yes when we’ve screwed up something. We can perform successfully for weeks and never see them but make one mistake and they descend on us like vultures.”
Of course, managers should address disappointing performances; but in doing so, they often fail to find the good.
Consider starting your next meeting by reviewing what the team has accomplished and recognizing members who have performed well.
Catching people doing things right, according to author and consultant Ken Blanchard, increases both satisfaction and motivation.
(Part 4 or 7)
During an intense session a couple of front-line managers disagreed with the vice president’s (VP) decision to open an office in a new territory.
“This opening will place a lot of stress on my team and it is not going to succeed,” one front-line manager commented.
Another responded, “There is just not enough demand. My staff will be stressed out. I can’t get them to support the decision. They know my position.”
After additional discussion, the VP closed the meeting with, “I understand the new opening is a challenge, but it is a risk we need to take. I’ll need everyone’s support.”
At this point, continued opposition is bad for all. It reduces the chances of success and likely creates financial strain. Also, the VP may become upset with dissenters and remove them.
When you accept a leadership position, you become a part of the leadership team. Teams are more effective when members passionately support and challenge decisions during meetings, while agreeing to row in the same direction once the decision is made.
When asked why he supported an unpopular decision, one front-line manager respond, “I can read an organizational chart.”