Double Down to Develop People, Processes

Double Down to Develop People, Processes by Phil Ayres | Talent Management   When making investments in business improvement, there are two common strategies organizations use: they employ leadership and organizational development to get the best out of people, or they refine and automate business processes to achieve efficiency and quality with the skills available.   Most organizations know that focusing on one approach or the other can help them meet many customer service, product quality or efficiency goals. However, rarely do companies take a chance and double down when investing in business improvement, though the payback can be enormous. Unlike in blackjack, where the double-down term originates, the overall risk of failure for the organization is actually reduced.   No More Touchy-Feely HR   Talent leaders often rely on employee development programs when striving to deliver specific business goals. A widely reported example of a company that does this well is FedEx. The company has detailed development plans and certifications for every employee and strong leadership development options to match. Companies like FedEx invest deeply in proven employee engagement methodologies, consisting of components such as:   a) Individual certifications to identify areas for personal improvement. b) Employee surveys to identify issues that need to be addressed at an organizational level. c) Development and training to improve employees' performance in their current roles. d) Leadership development to help managers work better with their peers and direct reports.   Organizational development relies on rigorous methodologies, organizational psychology and an almost scientific approach to measurement and action, making it hard to argue with the results. Development programs are tied back to business metrics, such as improved employee engagement, customer service quality and overall company performance.   Streamline What's Done   The second approach to business improvement, directly modifying business processes, is the approach manufacturing production lines worldwide have taken. When they use proven methodologies such as Six Sigma and lean production, process improvement programs guide companies to:   a) Run streamlined processes that weed out wasteful activities. b) Reduce the time lag between activities. c) Use employees for activities where they offer the most value and automate the rest. d) Implement changes that reduce errors to prevent rework. e) Measure process performance to know what is really going on.   The same mindset can be applied outside of manufacturing. In an office or services environment, a business process is typically the flow of activities that must be performed to service a transaction or customer request or to create some other work product. To take the place of the manufacturing production line, a streamlined process in an office environment is often guided by business process management or workflow software tools. These tools guide the minute-by-minute flow of work between employees while making the operations paperless.   The Team Players   Talent leaders already have a good idea about the type of organization that benefits most from leadership and organizational development. These types of organizations typically are:   a) Services or product organizations. b) Those that have regular communications with customers through delivery, sales or customer services channels. c) Those where a level of engagement, innovation and intelligence is required by employees. d) Those where activities performed are core to the company's business. e) Those where operations cannot be automated or outsourced while retaining the expected level of quality or customer service.   The aforementioned FedEx is a good example of this type of organization. Other good fits are research companies, such as 3M, Procter & Gamble and W.L. Gore, since employee engagement is core to their product innovation. Then there are the companies renowned for top customer service, such as Four Seasons Hotels and Southwest Airlines. These names resonate as excelling at what they do for a reason. The collective opinions of these companies would probably be quite different if their employee development followed more of a "hire and hope" strategy.   Ticking Like Clockwork   It is easy to identify manufacturing companies that have achieved process excellence. Names such as Motorola, GE and Toyota spring to mind. Good examples outside of manufacturing also exist: Amazon.com, for the level of automation it takes to actually accept and fulfill orders across so many suppliers; Bank of America, which in the financial services space does a better job than many at applying business process technology to common process problems; Toyota, again, since it applies the extremely lean and efficient Toyota production system to everything it does, not just the production line.   Process improvement is not a new concept, although in office environments it has only recently been applied in a consistent enough manner to be broadly recognized.   What if the Company Doesn't Double Down?   There is nothing to ensure that investing only in process improvement or only in employee development will lead a company to lose. Following the double-down analogy in blackjack, a win with a simple bet is still a win, just not with the same potential return. But addressing both approaches simultaneously may actually reduce the risk of losing if talent leaders:   1. Train for a new way of working. Training people to work in a new business process alongside a broad employee development plan can avoid trying to force old, unproductive work habits into a new process.   2. Manage change holistically to reduce risk. Only addressing one side of a business improvement program leaves the possibility of issues due to an unforeseen roadblock on the side that was ignored. Taking a holistic approach allows a greater likelihood of success.   3. Improve efficiency, but not at the cost of thinking. Poster child Toyota has shown that despite efficient processes, the intelligent handling of complex situations requires different employee skills. Not developing employees to think outside the production line can lead to occasional, extremely costly mistakes.   To ensure an organization does not fail into these traps, talent leaders should work with business managers on new projects, reinforcing the need for employee development and business process improvement to go hand in hand.   A Proven System, When Done Right   Despite recent issues, the Toyota production system (TPS) is a strong example of process improvement and people improvement working together. The TPS not only requires continuous process improvement; it also reinforces the concept that an organization adds value by developing its people. The TPS says:   1. Grow leaders who thoroughly understand the work, live the philosophy and teach it to others. 2. Develop exceptional people and teams who follow the company's philosophy. 3. Respect the extended network of partners and suppliers by challenging them and helping them improve.   Toyota believes that work team supervisors who work directly with production workers are important to continuous business improvement; since they are so directly attached to the operations, they constantly influence quality, cost, productivity and team morale. Developing these people is therefore core to the success of any Toyota process improvement project. As the company has demonstrated, when leadership development away from the production line is missed, problems growing in the business can be handled inappropriately, leading to huge, costly issues.   Great examples of doubling down done right can be found in companies that claim they can run a client's processes better and more cost-effectively than the client, or business process outsourcing (BPO) providers.   One example to support this is Bangalore-based BPO firm Wipro. The firm's long-standing implementation of Six Sigma for process improvement is well-known, and its standing as an excellent place to work supports the claim of great employee development programs. In fact, any credible outsourcing company will highlight a range of quality and development certifications that typically come from employee education in procedures and methodologies appropriate to its industry. Companies don't have to outsource to perform better, just copy what outsourcers do best and focus on people and processes simultaneously.   No Gambling, Just Strategy   When starting out, a pragmatic, lightweight approach to business improvement is essential, since only through experience can an organization see if an approach will work for its specific circumstances. Investing heavily upfront in one methodology or another can lead some companies to get stuck in an expensive cycle because it can be emotionally and politically hard to back away from a large investment if it proves ineffective.   Despite this, businesses should consider the impact of trying to do everything in-house in order to keep the investment and risk low. It is hard for most employees with a lengthy tenure to keep an open mind and look objectively at what does and doesn't work in the organization. Working with external consultants can give a valuable outside-in perspective while bringing in experience from other organizations with similar business problems.   Finally, after seeing success from a business improvement project, organizations should take a step back and assess where the new issues and opportunities for improvement lie. Removing a pain point in one area could highlight an issue in another area completely, making it important to be ready to mix strategies.   By doubling down when it makes sense, process improvement alongside leadership and organizational development can produce a winning hand every time.     [About the Author: Phil Ayres is founder of Consected LLC, a boutique provider of business process improvement solutions.]

Pros and Cons of 360 Feedback

What Should We Consider Before Implementing a System of Multirater Feedback? [Workforce Management | October 21, 2010]   Caution is wise, but even in a slow-to-change environment 360-degree feedback can be highly effective for developing leaders. The key: careful planning and execution with the right goals and systems in place.     Q: Our organization is considering implementation of a multirater feedback 360-degree system. We are concerned.   - Resistant to Change, employee and organizational consultant, government, Washington   A: You are right to be cautious. The profession is littered with failure stories of ill-conceived 360-degree feedback. Lack of clarity of purpose, too little planning, too much data entry, too little focus on organizational change and communication - these are the common pitfalls that will sink a 360 initiative. These risks are especially high in a culture of traditionalism that is averse to change.   But when carefully planned and executed, and with the right goals and systems in place, 360-degree feedback can be highly effective in your leadership development process - even in a slow-to-change environment. The following is a summary of leading practices that can serve as a guide:   1. Link your 360-degree strategy and process to corporate strategy and goals. Understand which corporate-level measures you hope to affect in rolling out the new process. Is it to increase innovation? Drive growth in new markets? Is is to expand and better manage the leadership pipeline to increase internal promotions or drive growth from within? Communicate the initiative in a way that ties the process to corporate goals and strategies. Traditionalist culture is best transformed when business impact is clearly articulated.   2. Determine whether the 360-degree process is a developmental or a performance measurement process. Do not try to have it be both. You cannot accomplish both in one process. More and more companies are moving toward viewing 360-degree feedback as a purely developmental process. Development-focused reviews yield better, more honest feedback and reduce the level of fear and resistance to the process.   3. Position it as part of a broader leadership planning and performance management process. It is one element of many that enable the organization to manage its talent pipeline.   4. Don't view 360-degree feedback as a panacea to measuring leadership performance. It can be a crucial element, but it won't suffice on its own. Consider implementing a talent assessment process in conjunction with a development-focused 360-degree process. Many organizations today find that the performance management process doesn't provide the information they need about leaders (or any critical role for that matter) to properly develop and plan for the future. To address this, they are putting into place content-rich assessments designed specifically for critical talent. Talent assessment processes include information such as leadership behaviors/competencies, learning agility, risk of turnover, readiness for next position and so on.   5. If the primary goal is to gather feedback to build individual development plans, think about who you want to include: Matrix reporting relationships, team/project members and customers/partners are often the most insightful raters in a 360 initiative.   6. Leverage technology. The sheer number of people involved and volume of documents to be combined and reconciled makes an automated system a necessity.     [Source: Heidi Spirgi, president, Knowledge Infusion, Danville, California]

Coaching Poor Performers

How Do We Truly Persuade Poor Performers to Change Behavior?

[Workforce Management | November 04, 2010]

 

Focus on the coaching aspects of performance improvement. It positions you to address the root causes of performance difficulties and inspires employees to take ownership of the issues.

 

 

Q: When counseling poor performers, what steps could we take to persuade them to adopt new ways of doing things that will improve their on-the-job performance?

 

- Salvage Job, manager, finance/insurance/real estate, Lagos, Nigeria

 

A: Most organizations have a process called "corrective action" that guides managers on the proper steps to take when addressing an employee's poor performance. To persuade the employee to improve, however, focus on the coaching aspects of performance improvement. It positions you to address the root causes of performance difficulties and inspires employees to take ownership of the issues.

 

Coaching is designed to improve the work of the employee, the team and departments. The idea is to engage employees to take accountability for improved performance, relying on your support to make it happen. Persuasion is about getting people to want to do what you want them to do. It's how you tap into their values and needs, and link your goals to the realization of their dreams.

 

To be persuasive, three key ingredients must be mixed in the proper proportions:

 

1. Trust.

People trust you when they can rely on you. They may grant you a certain level of trust because of your position, your credentials or your reputation. But trust is built through relationship consistency. Trust in oneself is also an important ingredient in persuasion. Self-doubt can undermine employee achievement. You reduce employees doubt by building their confidence through consistent, achievable successes.

 

2. Logic.

To persuade someone to adopt your goal, it must pass the test of reason. If a goal does not make sense, you'll have a hard time persuading the employee to take it on. So be reasonable in your expectations.

 

3. Emotion.

Your goal must appeal to the employee's imagination and sense of purpose. By understanding the employee's interests and needs for success, you'll go a long way in persuading the employee to take on the goal. By treating your employee as someone who wants to achieve extraordinary results, you show good faith and respect. To understand what it is that individual employees need and care about, listen to their words and observe their body language and emotional expression.

 

See how the Chatfield Group's 7-Step Coaching Process fits with your leadership style:

 

1. Engage the employee.

Express confidence in the employee's ability and willingness to solve the problem. Ask the employee for help in solving the problem.

 

2. Get clear about the problem.

Describe the performance challenge as you see it, and ask the employee to help clarify relevant issues. Use effective questioning skills to get the employee to provide specific examples and describe the desired outcome. Help the employee estimate what the problem is costing him or her.

 

3. Identify the barriers to performance.

Listen carefully to determine if the problem is because of a lack of skills and ability or a lack of interest and motivation. Typical barriers to high performance are time, tools, training and temperament. Check with the employee to determine what is getting in the way of top performance. With the employee's involvement, determine how to remove or sidestepperformance barriers.

 

4. Create an action plan.

Agree on a plan for improving the situation. Put the plan in writing and share it with the employee. Remember, work performance should never be a mystery, so make the plan a working document and be sure it reflects the employee's input.

 

a) What will you do to help the employee accomplish goals within desired time frames?

 

b) What will the employee do to facilitate improvements?

 

c) Are these items reasonable and achievable?

 

5. Inspire success.

Create a picture of what success looks like that captures the employee's emotion. Coaching is about helping to unlock the employee's true potential by encouraging creativity and ensuring development.

 

6. Follow up frequently.

Don't wait too long. Check on progress to be sure necessary improvements are taking hold. Offer your help when it's needed.

 

7. Celebrate success.

Offer encouragement and positive feedback when things go well. Support the employee's can-do attitude and express appreciation for the employee's contribution.

 

 

[Source: Patsy Svare, managing director, The Chatfield Group, Northbrook, Illinois]

 

Competencies and Promotions

During Promotion and Raises, How Do We Assess People of Similar Yet Differing Competencies?

[Workforce Management | November 18, 2010]

 

Some mechanism needs to be in place or promotions will have too much of 'chance' element.

 

 

Q: We are an animation company and work on multiple projects of varied complexities. The individual performance evaluation is done based on similar KSAs (knowledge, skills and abilities) defined for specific roles. Our challenge: how to normalize the performance across different projects for individuals with same ratings when evaluating pay hikes/promotions. We will not be able to consider them at the same competency level because their work is of varied complexities.

 

- Uniformity Won't Work, senior HR manager, software/services, Bangalore, India

 

A: To answer that, you may need to consider how the KSAs of your employees are being utilized.

 

How are people assigned to different projects? What determines if comparable team members are put on more difficult projects?

 

In other words, is project work being allocated based on KSAs? Or are people put on projects more so by availability? If the rotating start and completion of different projects determines who is asked to do what, then you need to acknowledge that and try to improve how you optimize the use of staff resources.

 

For example, a lot of work may be routine. But the steady stream of routine projects often pays the bills. Though they may not be technically challenging, the projects may be on tight schedules or for clients who are difficult to please. How employees perform in these other areas should be taken into account when assessing performance.

 

If team members are at comparable levels, do they have an opportunity to work on different levels of projects over time? Some mechanism needs to be in place for this, or promotion can have too much of an element of chance to it, based on what the next open project holds. The responsibility falls to your management to provide the opportunity, as well as the tools, to succeed.

 

Another avenue to accomplish this is through subject-matter experts, or SMEs, who take on this role in addition to core project-team roles (e.g., project manager, designer, and production). Have SMEs float between projects to tackle technical complexity and smooth out learning curves. Ultimately, the challenge in normalizing performance evaluations is in understanding the bottom-line value to the organization of work being done. If your organization is project-based, then you need to understand how you account for employees' work and correlate it to your projects.

 

Whether your organization bills clients directly for employee hours worked or submits flat-fee bids, you should still have a sense of the cost of work. Tying this work(in terms of hours) to the value of elements of individual projects can help quantify different contributions across a variety of projects. To create continuous improvement, use this information to refine the estimating, bidding and resource allocation on future projects.

 

 

[Source: Scott Weston, author, HR Excellence: Improving Service Quality and Return on Investment in Human Resources]

 

Assessing Team Members

How Do We Assess the Performance of Individual Employees Who Work on Teams? [Workforce Management | December 2, 2010]   If you haven't fully migrated to an integrated team structure, focus on changing the culture first before addressing rewards.     Q: How do we assess the performance of individual employees who mostly work on teams? While designing our performance management system, the goal is to link each employee's individual performance with his or her annual reward. But we're having trouble applying a useful measure to determine an individual's contributions.   - No "I" in Team, HR executive, software/systems, Bangalore, India   A: "Team" is one of the most widely misused and misunderstood terms in business. Some people use it to describe a tightly integrated group of people who are self-motivated and self-led. If your team is organized in this manner, presumably it's because the work of its members is highly interdependent, thus making it impractical for members to operate independently.   Others use the term to refer to any group of people working in a common function or department. If individuals do not depend on one another totally, they probably should not be regarded as a team. If, however, they indeed function as interdependent members of a group, evaluate them as such and reward them according to the success of the whole group.   What do you do if you wish to reward one or more exceptional members? Some team-based organizations find it effective to allow the members themselves to determine how much of a reward should be distributed to exceptional teammates. These rewards should be considerably less than those distributed to the team as a whole to avoid undermining the team structure. To assist team members in the reward-allocation process, you might help them develop meaningful criteria and parameters, such as the following:   a) Individual rewards, if any, are determined only after team rewards have been established.   b) No equal distribution of funds to all team members. Each team member evaluates fellow team members' contributions according to established and agreed-upon factors, such as superior effort, drive and results, breakthrough thinking, leadership and collaboration.   c) Team members must all agree on how much and to whom individual rewards are distributed - no agreement equals no reward. If no single team member's contributions stand out above that of other members, no individual reward should be distributed.   If you haven't fully migrated to an integrated team structure, focus on changing the culture first, then address the reward system. Absent a team culture, problems associated with your reward system likely will become an unnecessary distraction, if not an outright nuisance. This is easily avoided with a supportive culture.     [Source: Kevin Herring, Ascent Management Consulting, Oro Valley, Arizona]

Preparing Managers for Productive Communication About Pay

Preparing Managers for Productive Communication About Pay

Mercer's Human Capital Perspective | Volume 4, Issue 4 - 2010

 

For many managers, communicating about compensation is an uncomfortable part of the job, and today's austere budgets aren't making the task any easier. Debra Besch, a Principal in Mercer's Workforce Communication and Change consulting business, discusses difficulties inherent in the situation, challenges posed by today's compensation budgets and steps organizations can take to prepare managers for positive, productive communication about pay.

 

Q: What is the landscape today around communicating with employees about compensation? Why is it so difficult for managers to have these discussions?

 

Debra Besch: Communicating about compensation has always been challenging. It requires specific skills and knowledge to make good compensation decisions and then to effectively convey those decisions to employees. This difficulty has been exacerbated by the recent economic downturn and its impact on compensation - from low to no salary increases and diminished short-term and long-term incentives. No one likes to deliver hard messages about pay, but in the past few years, a lot of managers have had to do it. With an increasing emphasis on performance differentiation and linked rewards, combined with continued pressures on compensation budgets, these kinds of discussions are likely to continue.

 

Q: How are expectations changing for different stakeholders - the organization itself, HR, line managers and employees - around communicating compensation?

 

DB: The key change for the organization is recognizing that compensation communication cannot be left to chance. It is a managerial capability that must be deliberately developed and reinforced over time. This means laying a foundation that will enable HR to do a better job of supporting managers and will help managers do a better job of both making compensation decisions and communicating those decisions to employees clearly and honestly.

 

Organizations also need to help employees understand the fundamental concepts about how pay in general and their pay specifically is determined. This is important because there is significant research that correlates employees' understanding how pay is determined with their satisfaction with the amount of pay.

 

HR's role in compensation communication is also changing. Rather than having responsibility for policing compensation decisions, HR is increasingly expected to serve as a consultant to leaders and managers struggling to make difficult decisions or improve communication techniques.

 

For line managers, the expectation that they, rather than HR, will take the lead role in - and accountability for - making compensation decisions and communicating those decisions to employees is greater than ever. To effectively manage performance and rewards, today's manager needs to be able to say to employees, "I understand your performance, I've communicated your performance, and this is the increase you're getting based on these criteria." Further, a manager needs to be able to take on the difficult conversations, address employees' concerns about their compensation and be able to credibly discuss rewards in the context of the total employment value. This is still a major shift in many organizations where managers have traditionally taken a more passive role, falling back on explanations like, "I would have given you more, but HR wouldn't let me."

 

Finally, employee expectations need to be managed so that employees are more prepared for and receptive to pay messages. In general, organizations continue to raise the bar on employee performance without necessarily offering a commensurate increase in rewards. Employees need to be educated so they can understand this reality across organizations and know what level of performance will result in increased compensation.

 

Q: What steps can each of these populations take to make these changes happen?

 

DB: Organizations can start by conducting some baseline research to identify what HR, managers and employees currently understand about compensation, both in terms of the concepts of market competitiveness and equity and also in terms of the processes, tools and resources that exist in the organization. This research will provide guidance about the types of training and education that may be required for different populations within the organization.

 

Next, the organization can develop a formal compensation communication and training strategy. This strategy should specify how transparent the organization wants to be about compensation. For example, does the organization simply want to communicate key  compensation concepts to employees, or does it want to reveal the entire salary structure? And over what time period?

 

The strategy should also delineate how HR and line managers will be trained to perform their responsibilities. After all, neither HR generalists nor HR business partners are necessarily compensation experts, while most line managers come into their roles without being taught how to make or communicate compensation decisions. Both HR and managers will need to be educated about fundamentals such as the company's compensation philosophy and the mechanics of compensation programs. In addition, HR will need training on effectively supporting managers through providing market data or good evidence supporting the equity and competitiveness of compensation. Meanwhile, line managers will need specific training on what content to include in their conversations with employees, the degree of transparency expected and how to talk about compensation without using confusing jargon.

 

Third, the strategy should specify the kinds of communications and training that will be provided directly to employees. For example, the organization might want to present employees with simplified "Compensation 101" courses that cover key concepts about how pay is determined and how the incentive plan works. Our experience has shown that this type of direct-to-employee communication is an important adjunct to information from managers and helps employees hear the messages from their manager in context.

 

Finally, leaders have to model good compensation communication for the rest of the organization. They need to have the right kind of conversations year-round with their own direct reports, who can then cascade that positive behavior throughout the organization.

 

HR leaders can also take steps to enhance compensation communication by embracing their new role and becoming more consultative and supportive of line managers. HR must be willing to help managers make difficult decisions and provide them with reinforcing coaching. In order to do all this, HR must take advantage of all the training and resources the organization makes available.

 

Q: With all their new responsibilities, what else can front-line managers do to make discussions more fruitful?

 

DB: One thing they can do is ensure that they're accessing all the available resources on compensation. This may include consulting with their HR partners or with other managers to think through decisions and determine the best way to handle difficult conversations, such as talking with a high performer who is getting a low increase. In addition, managers should take the time to anticipate the kinds of concerns that may come up in compensation discussions with employees and prepare accordingly.

 

Some organizations have created online sites where managers can access information and salary planning tools and can exchange ideas, questions and best practices with other managers. Another thing we see emerging is the use of peer-to-peer communication, where role-model managers are recruited to help educate their peers.

 

It's also important that managers communicate with employees year- round rather than waiting until the end of the year. By keeping an eye on the organization's performance and the implications for compensation well in advance of year-end decision making, managers can help employees develop realistic expectations and avoid major surprises.

 

Finally, managers can make compensation communication more productive by exploring what other kinds of rewards are valuable to employees. While all employees want to be paid what they think they're worth, individuals also value other forms of rewards, such as recognition or the opportunity to be exposed to other parts of the business. When managers think broadly about rewards and research what employees want, they can help employees decouple their perception of their self-worth from their pay and improve compensation discussions.

 

Driving High Performance

Driving High Performance by Harold D. Stolovitch, Ph.D | Talent Management   Several precious workdays of not being very productive despite lots of activity left me in a foul mood. Dissatisfied with my poor performance, I decided to do some digging to determine if it was just me or, as I suspected, a more generalized issue.   Let me share with you the discoveries I made concerning what interferes with meeting our important performance goals and what we can do once enlightened. I began with Gaylan Nielson and Brent Peterson's book Fake Work: Why People Are Working Harder Than Ever Before but Accomplishing Less, and How to Fix the Problem. Having surveyed more than 100,000 employees in 300-plus organizations, they found that a whopping 90 percent reported being unsatisfied with their work results. Two-thirds disclosed that they often duplicated others' work due to lack of coordination.   They determined many causes. Among them were unclear, long-winded and vague organizational objectives that confuse employees about where to focus and what to do; meaningless meetings dwelling on past issues rather than future needs; pointless paperwork, from filling out senseless forms and writing unread reports to deciphering meaning from meandering memos that devour time better applied to useful ends.   Moving on, I encountered numerous attacks on e-mail. Designed to improve communication, e-mail often overwhelms workers - too frequent, too many, too long, too irrelevant. The general consensus is that while enthusiastic technophiles praise technology's potential, the humble worker is being buried under increasing avalanches of indigestible information.   Paradoxically, people at work also turn to technology for distraction and relief. Leslie Taylor, in a 2006 Inc.magazine article, reported that workers spend 1.86 hours per day on tasks unrelated to their jobs, the most frequent being surfing the Net for personal needs. In 2007, Tom Pisello of the National Association of Professional Organizers calculated that organizations lose about $1,250 per worker annually on reading and deleting spam and $1,800 on scanning and responding to unnecessary e-mails.   Now there is social media. In a 2009 survey of 1,460 office workers, British group Morse IT found that respondents self-reported spending 40 minutes per week during work on Twitter, Facebook, MySpace and the like for personal reasons. The same respondents estimated that their colleagues spent closer to 60 minutes. Morse IT concluded that U.K. organizations lose $225 billion annually on non-job-related social media use. RescueTime, a firm that analyzes computer habits, studied 40,000 computer workers and found they check e-mails more than 50 times a day and use instant messaging 77 times daily.   The more I delved into the writings and studies on this theme, the more the list of unproductive performance causes grew. Here is an abbreviated list: trivial but mandatory tasks that when examined contribute little to priority performance requirements; unnecessary training, often imposed without determining whether or not attendees will ever be able to use what is taught; oversocializing with co-workers; performing outside errands; poor written and oral communication that creates ambiguity, confusion or even fear; and work-related stresses caused by thoughtless management.   I was taken aback when I examined U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data showing how productivity had grown between 2007 and 2009 - more than 6 percent annually compared with 2.6 percent from 1995 to 2006. Were my complaints and those of others unfounded? However, probing further, I encountered Dennis Lockhart, CEO and president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, who explained in a June 2010 speech, "... Short-term productivity gains [have resulted from] squeezing more and more from a diminished ... workforce and may not be sustainable." Already this year, first quarter productivity declined to 2.8 percent; second quarter productivity actually decreased 1.8 percent. The dramatic effect of paid hours falling faster than output these past few years has ended. The need is for real productive performance.   In my case, unnecessary distractions, inefficient use of time, too much electronic communication and responding to low-priority demands have decreased my productive performance. I have learned a lot from this exercise. What about you?     [About the Author: Harold D. Stolovitch, Ph.D., CPT is a principal of HSA Learning & Performance Solutions LLC and is emeritus professor of instructional and performancetechnology at the Universite de Montreal.]