Workers Fear Cooperating in Virtual Teams May Make Them Obsolete

Workers Fear Cooperating in Virtual Teams May Make Them Obsolete
By Bill Snyder
Stanford Graduate School of Business

From email to groupware and the wireless Web, advances in information technology make it easier to disseminate information within an enterprise and make it possible for far-flung employees to work together efficiently. Organizations now can form teams with little regard for the physical location of the members and even take advantage of time differences to extend service hours and push jobs to completion sooner.

And a number of studies indicate that virtual teams (teams in which most members cannot regularly meet face to face) embrace technology quickly and use it to disseminate information more efficiently than traditional teams.

But a recently published research paper by scholars at Stanford's Graduate School of Business and two other universities suggests that virtual teams may extract an unexpected price: People who add their hard-won knowledge to a common pool may become alienated from the organization and even fear that they are sowing the seeds for their own replacement.

After all, says Stanford's Margaret Neale, if your knowledge—not to mention the tricks and tips it has taken years to learn—is deposited in a database for all to access, does the organization still need you? "It's a real fear," says Neale. "Technology has the potential to destabilize the relationship between organizations and employees."

Also a serious concern: Employees working in virtual teams are, to a certain extent, isolated from their colleagues. Although they may have contact with other employees of their organizations, they don't spend much time with them. In this situation, the virtual worker loses opportunities to learn from his or her closest colleagues. In effect, there's a double penalty. The virtual worker perceives herself as giving away her knowledge but not having the chance to "replenish her own reservoir of knowledge," and thus feels even more vulnerable, says Neale.

Neale, the Business School's John G. McCoy-Banc One Corporation Professor of Organizations and Dispute Resolution, collaborated with Terri L. Griffith of the Leavey School of Business at Santa Clara University and John E. Sawyer of the Alfred Lerner College of Business and Economics at the University of Delaware . Their paper, "Virtualness and Knowledge in Teams: Managing the Love Triangle of Organizations, Individuals, and Information Technology," was published in the MIS Quarterly in June 2003.

Unlike much of their earlier work, the Love Triangle paper is not based directly on experimental work. Instead, it is based on years of study (sometimes separately, sometimes together) of virtual teams, including fieldwork, by the authors.

To better understand the researchers' argument, it's important to realize that there is more than one kind of team and more than one kind of knowledge.

A purely virtual team is one whose members never (or almost never) meet. A traditional team works in the same office or building and often meets face to face. And a hybrid team might consist of a few remote employees and a majority of employees based in the home office or a team that works separately some of the time and together the rest. Since the lines separating each type of team are somewhat blurry, the researchers often speak of teams as being "more virtual" or "less virtual"; and their research shows that hybrid teams now make up the majority of organizational teams.

Because they are the most geographically diverse, teams that are more virtual may be able to draw upon a wider variety of information sources. Team members from similar backgrounds or social networks tend to have redundant sources of knowledge, while virtual team members (who tend to be from different backgrounds or networks) tend to be more complementary.

Individual knowledge, the researchers say, lies on a continuum from explicit knowledge, which is knowledge that can be expressed very concretely; through implicit knowledge, which is known but hard to explain; to tacit knowledge, which is developed through experience and social contact. By its nature, tacit knowledge is very difficult to transfer.

Because virtual teams use technology well, they are likely to share explicit knowledge with the rest of the organization better than traditional teams. But tacit knowledge is difficult to share without direct contact, which means that virtual team members will have a harder time sharing their tacit knowledge with teammates and learning from their team members. And that leads to isolation and frustration.

Identifying a problem is easier than fixing it. But the researchers recommend a number of strategies to improve knowledge transfer with virtual teams, including:

Verbalize rules, terminology, and descriptions.

Give team members access to tools that support highly interdependent work, such as advanced groupware or video conferencing.

Make it easier for virtual team members to learn from colleagues on other teams and other organizations; for example, setting up mentoring programs, or encouraging team members to attend conferences.

Develop cross-team groups focused on particular skills that will keep isolated team members exposed to knowledge from the rest of the organization.

Creating a Strategy-focused Workforce

Creating a Strategy-focused Workforce
By Cassandra Frangos

Human capital is now firmly acknowledged as a strategic source of value creation --indeed, a company's most valued asset -- in today's knowledge-based economy. As natural custodians of human capital, human resource executives are expected to lead its development, but most HR organizations lack a strategic planning process for human capital, much less a consistent way to describe and measure it. The following is an outline of these leading methodologies.

Measuring, Tracking, and Benchmarking the ROI of Human Capital
Dr. Jac Fitz-enz, founder and chairman, Saratoga Institute; author of The ROI of Human Capital; and acknowledged as the father of human capital benchmarking and performance assessment.

Reflecting a growing view among leading thinkers, Jac Fitz-enz believes the HR organization will never achieve full potential until it can describe the role human capital plays in creating organizational value and demonstrate its investment return. Armed with such data, HR practitioners can identify and analyze relationships between business actions and human capital results. This is hardly bean-counter thinking; employee costs can exceed 40% of corporate expense. Add to that the investment in talent, development of organizational knowledge, and the fact that training time hasn't diminished nearly as rapidly as product and business cycles have accelerated, and you can see that turnover costs have mushroomed.

Traditionally, HR has reported on its ability to reduce the costs of HR processes, rather than focusing on the results. HR, like every business function, should have a set of operational metrics. Yet most functional areas lack metrics that describe their effectiveness in creating value. Just as an accounting system tells us what is happening by reporting profits and losses, there is a basic methodology for process management. Fitz-enz cited five generic ways to evaluate an HR process: How much does it cost? How long does it take? How much was accomplished? How many errors or defects occurred in the process? And, how did employees respond ( e.g., to the job satisfaction survey)? Each of these criteria can be applied across the three core human capital practices: acquiring talent (cost per hire), developing it (cost per trainee), and retaining it (cost of turnover). Fitz-enz also advocates that organizations involve HR more actively in strategic planning. And if HR's mission is to improve business operations - to become a strategic partner - HR professionals must, as he says, "get their heads out of the paper and their minds in the business." The Balanced Scorecard can establish a common language and focus for demonstrating human capital's impact on desired business outcomes. Managing human capital effectively will help organizations execute their strategic plans. Start with the enterprise, he says, cascade to the business units and functions, and then show the value created from human capital. Measurement is the fuel for the Balanced Scorecard, and human capital is the driver of strategy - and ultimately, success.

Measuring and Managing Human Capital: Getting to the Strategy Table
David P. Norton, co-creator, Balanced Scorecard; president and co-founder, Balanced Scorecard Collaborative.

HR executives have long been concerned with the question, "How do I get to the strategy table?" A recent study by Kennedy Information, the leading research firm on the consulting industry, found that 40% of HR executives are asked to sit at the strategy table, while 60% still play a passive or reactive role. Norton's conclusion: HR lacks the science and tools to describe and measure human capital (as many as 85% of organizations do not have an adequate way to describe human capital, according to a BSCol survey of HR executives). Without the ability to measure HR's strategic contribution, organizations cannot manage human capital as a strategic asset. Its little wonder that half the organizations BSCol surveyed stated that human capital is not linked to strategy.

The Balanced Scorecard, though, has emerged as an important tool to address this challenge. The missing link between HR and the enterprise, Norton observes, is a shared model of the strategy. Such a model would give HR professionals a point of reference for defining the impact of human capital on organizational strategy - and for tailoring development programs to the organization's strategic priorities. The Balanced Scorecard is the "how" that transforms the HR function from sideline player to strategic partner.

The starting point is to build a strategy map to articulate organizational strategy and then define how human capital is linked to strategy. This strategy-based view of human capital provides a prescriptive framework to guide the development of measures of the contribution of human capital. Out of this framework arose the BSCol "Human Capital Readiness Report," which provides a snapshot of an organization's human capital relative to its strategic requirements. It documents the strategic requirements, then shows, through its measures and programs, how human capital is being developed. HR professionals can use the report as a communications tool that, among other things, can help justify the value of human capital investments, something they are under increasing pressure to do. The report provides the foundation for a periodic review of HR's strategic challenges and contributions - in effect, a progress report. As such, it becomes the bridge between enterprise strategy and HR, giving HR entrée to the strategy table and empowering it as a true strategic partner. HR can now work toward improving human capital readiness, and more broadly, toward enhancing the organization's ability to execute its strategy.

HR in the New Millennium: A Perspective from the Profession
Helen G. Drinan, CEO3, the Society of Human Resource Management.

The impact of technology, global competition, outsourcing, and a shrinking pool of qualified talent on the organization demand a new kind of HR leadership - strategic leadership. Is the HR profession up to the challenge? How aligned are HR professionals with the CEO's top priorities?

One million people in the United States identify themselves as HR professionals. Opportunities abound for forward-thinking HR professionals. But for those who ignore the skills, experience, and technology it takes to implement workforce strategies with bottom-line impact, survival is at stake. Both types fail to understand the macro business environment and long-term issues - a requisite step to building successful business-aligned HR strategy. This integrated worldview has never been more critical, given today's accelerated, globally competitive business environment, and increasingly service- and knowledge-based economy.

In a recent study, the Society of Human Resource Management (SHRM) addressed such key questions as: What is the most exciting work in HR today? What skills and experience levels are necessary for the successful HR professional? Within the next decade, what are the primary workplace challenges facing the HR profession? And will the HR profession as we know it survive?

Workforce issues are at the top of the CEO's agenda. The SHRM study also revealed the increasing recognition that people represent the only real competitive advantage a company can sustain - and that HR's "seat at the table" is already established. The question is: Will it be occupied by an HR professional - or someone else? Who will execute the human capital strategy?

Interest in HR issues has grown beyond the HR department; indeed, there's a growing acknowledgment that human capital management has become a requisite skill for CEOs. Consider a recent Conference Board study, which cited customer loyalty and competition for talent as two of the biggest CEO challenges. SHRM's study revealed that HR's pressing issues are: becoming a strategic partner, applying new technology, managing talent, recognizing and developing the employee's relationship to company brand, dealing with mergers and acquisitions and business reconfigurations, and reducing costs.

So what is the profile of outstanding HR leaders? Among other things, they derive their agendas from enterprise business objectives; they stay in touch with the workforce; think "customer focus," not "customer service"; and concentrate on a few strategic priorities.

The Future of HR: Linked to the Enterprise Strategy
A growing number of HR experts - Brian Becker, Mark Huselid, David Ulrich, Steve Kirn, John Boudreau, to cite a few - are searching for measures and systems, both quantitative and qualitative (behavioral), to better align HR strategy with business strategy. Jac Fitz-enz provides an "HR-out" view that looks at HR processes and describes the human capital value added. The Balanced Scorecard offers a framework to manage and measure human capital and provides an integrated strategic planning process for HR. David Norton provides a "strategy-in" view of measuring and managing human capital.

At the same time, more and more organizations are successfully integrating human capital management and HR strategy through the BSC. At Alterra Health Care, the percentage of employees who understand the company's strategy grew from 20% to 80%. Hilton Hotels increased customer satisfaction as well as post-stay loyalty. It also shares company stock with employees. Crown Castle International transformed the HR function into a human capital partner, and Ingersoll Rand overhauled its strategic management system and aligned the organization using the Balanced Scorecard, with HR as leader and champion of the process.

It is clear that human capital is a strategic priority; what's not is how it will be managed. But if these positive developments are any indication, we should expect to see more of the strategy table seats occupied by HR in the not-too-distant future.

Hiring for Executive Intelligence

Hiring for Executive Intelligence by Justin Menkes

The Limits of IQ Tests

Until now, the only cognitive skills measured were those initially identified to predict schoolchildren's academic performance—and traditionally such skills have been measured using IQ tests. Although IQ tests were not originally intended for use in business, studies have shown that these instruments predict work performance at least as well as competency interviews do (the most common assessment tool used today for hiring and promotion) and about ten times better than personality tests do. That's because some of the thinking skills that support academic success are also crucial to executive performance.

Yet IQ testing is not widely used as a way to identify top talent (though it plays an indirect role, as companies may choose to hire people with degrees from elite schools). The skills that IQ tests assess represent a fraction of a person's existing cognitive abilities. Some of the skills measured—such as vocabulary, arithmetic, and spatial reasoning—have almost no relevance to managerial work. Moreover, the topics tested would seem academic and elementary—indeed, almost insulting—to people with extensive professional experience.

The format is also ill suited to business. Executives rarely if ever confront problems that have just one right answer; nor do they have the option of picking one answer from several choices listed. IQ test questions don't assess the practical, on-your-feet thinking skills needed in business. What's more, these tests have been repeatedly accused of racial and gender bias.

IQ tests don't assess the practical, on-your-feet thinking skills needed in business.

Yet, despite these very real shortcomings, IQ tests are still a better predictor of managerial success than any other assessment tool. The business world's reluctance to use intelligence testing of any kind (other than assessments of emotional intelligence, which is really about personality and style) has robbed companies of a powerful tool for evaluating candidates for employment or promotion. It is, however, possible to create a comparable measure of intelligence for executives, one that tests for the skills managers need—such as evaluating the quality of data or accurately identifying the core issues in a conflict—and in a format that more accurately emulates the real business environment.

Interviewing for Intelligence
The most common interviewing methodology is the "past behavioral interview" (PBI). A PBI includes questions about a person's experiences performing certain activities—such as managing deadlines or resolving conflicts—but does not include personal questions. This form of interview has become the accepted best practice over the past thirty years, and, in fact, the PBI is a good predictor of performance. It can explain about 25 percent of the variances in performance among employees.

Still, PBIs miss a lot of what determines executives' success. That's because they don't measure what they claim to. Take two sample PBI questions. "What is the strategic direction of your company or division, and how did you go about developing it?" is designed to assess someone's competence at devising strategy. And "Describe a situation in which you had to interact with a difficult colleague and resolve a conflict" is supposed to test a person's capacity to handle conflicts. Surprisingly, you can just as accurately predict an executive's ability to devise strategy based on her answer to the second question as you can based on her answer to the first. This is not just a single example unique to these two competency questions; the same circumstance holds true for any competency question.

Research by professors Jesús F. Salgado and Silvia Moscoso of the University of Santiago de Compostela in Spain explains why. A person's performance on any behavioral interview question is dominated by the same three qualities: experience, job knowledge, and social skills. A candidate with a long work history has lots of compelling examples to draw from when asked to recount events that might illustrate a particular competency. A candidate's job knowledge—specifically, his awareness of industrial and managerial best practices—can make it easier for him to punctuate his answers with stories that will earn him high marks from interviewers. And a candidate who can relate his stories in a positive, likable manner has a distinct advantage over someone with inferior social skills. Because each question in the behavioral interview essentially assesses the same qualities, there's no need for the grueling three-to-four-hour sessions favored by hiring managers today. They need only ask enough questions to get a reliable appraisal of the candidate's work experience, job knowledge, and social skills.

Despite their advantages, behavioral interviews really only establish a candidate's minimum qualifications; they don't identify star talent. A candidate's experience, for example, is obviously an important hiring factor, but we all know seasoned executives who aren't stars. Similarly, being likable doesn't mean you have the intellectual horsepower to be a stellar leader. In short, behavioral interviews measure knowledge, not intelligence. Knowledge is information acquired through experience or formal training. Intelligence is the skill with which someone uses knowledge to solve a problem. Knowledge questions require people to recite what they have learned or experienced, while intelligence questions call for individuals to demonstrate their abilities.

So how do you measure executive intelligence? The best way is to use questions that require candidates to demonstrate their skills in an interview format. For such a measure to assess intelligence, it must raise questions and situations that the candidate has never confronted. The more novel the situation, the less rote knowledge can be applied and the more cognitive ability is required to render an answer.

Intelligence is the skill with which someone uses knowledge to solve a problem.

The interview format is a departure for intelligence tests, which have traditionally been presented as written, multiple-choice exams because their developers believed that human judges could not make objective assessments. But that's not true. The Educational Testing Service recently changed the format of the Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) to include essay writing. The move was controversial, because it introduced a human element into the judging, presumably making scores less objective. But, in fact, research had shown that other essay-based standardized tests, such as some Advanced Placement exams, were in many cases better predictors of academic success than the SAT. That's because most university students are graded on essay exams; almost none of their grades are derived from multiple-choice testing. It turns out that the best way to predict how well people will write essays in the future is to test them using an essay format today. In other words, to most accurately predict someone's performance, you must closely mimic the context in which the individual will have to perform.

The same holds true in the office. Executives exchange information through conversations, questions are posed, and decisions are made on the fly. The most accurate predictor of business performance would have to imitate these dynamics, and human evaluators are far and away the best judges of such interactions.

Rather than concentrating on academic subjects, executive intelligence tests should focus on the particular cognitive subjects associated with executive work: accomplishing tasks, working with and through others, and judging oneself. The questions shouldn't require specific industry expertise or experience. Any knowledge they call for must be rudimentary and common to all executives. Only then can a hiring manager be assured that the disparities among job candidates are because of differences in their processing power, not in their knowledge. And the questions should not be designed to ask whether the candidate has a particular skill; they should be configured so that the candidate will have to demonstrate the skill in the course of answering the question.

Imagine you want to determine whether someone can critically examine underlying assumptions and can anticipate likely unintended consequences. Rather than ask the candidate to recount an occasion in which she did either of these things, you must present a fact-based situation in which she would need to apply such skills. An executive intelligence evaluation designed to test these abilities might look like this:

You are the CEO of a large software company. Your prices are being severely undercut by both domestic and foreign competitors. Your executive team recognizes a desperate need to cut costs. Your COO concludes that the answer is to outsource most of the company's programming to foreign subcontractors, thereby reducing labor costs. In fact, your COO has already received a number of bids from service firms in both India and South Korea. What questions do you have about his proposal?

A candidate displaying a high level of executive intelligence while answering this question would explain that the core assumption underlying the COO's conclusion needs to be confirmed—that is, outsourcing automatically equals cheaper production. She might point out that there may be indirect costs (up-front investment, ongoing customer service, and software development issues) involved with such a move that must be considered. Further, she would cite the probable unintended consequences of the COO's proposal, such as how using a distant workforce might affect productivity or labor relations.

Justin Menkes (jmenkes@executiveintelligence.com) is a managing director of the Executive Intelligence Group, a New York-based consulting firm partnered with Spencer Stuart and focused on the assessment of executive talent. Menkes earned a Ph.D. in organizational behavior from Claremont Graduate University, where he studied with the late Peter Drucker.

How To Develop A Motivated Mindset !!

From time to time, each of us will find ourselves in a rut of boredom and disinterest. We seem to lose our zest for life and feel tired, irritable and unmotivated. We want to hide under the covers rather than face the day. Perhaps you're feeling overwhelmed by work, or sad about the pain and suffering in the world, or just bored with the routine of your daily life.

You are not alone. We all go through periods like this at some point. The good news is that we can do something about it. Here are some tips to help break out of the rut and feel excited about life again:

1) Take a "Time Out" - Prolonged stress can wear us down and zap any enthusiasm we once had. Before doing anything else, take a few minutes to breathe and just BE. Empty your mind of all stress and worry. This takes practice, but don't give up! As thoughts come into your mind, gently push them back out and continue to keep your mind empty and calm. Take slow, deep breaths and let all of your muscles relax. Sit quietly and recharge your batteries. Try to do this daily, or even twice daily (morning and night). We need quiet time as much as we need anything else in life. Give yourself the gift of inner peace.

2) Get Inspired - Read something motivational, inspirational or uplifting. Look at some beautiful nature photos, or read something humorous. Consciously move your thoughts to a more positive place. Focusing on nothing but work and our daily tasks in life can leave us feeling pretty uninspired. It's easy to turn it around if we want to. We just have to seek out things that will lift our spirits and our moods. Make it a point to laugh, be happy, joyful and lighthearted each day. Don't wait for inspiration to come knocking on your door, go out and find it, or create it. Conjure up some funny or touching memories. Write them in a journal so you can go back and read them when you're feeling down.

3) Get Excited - Think about the things you have planned for the day, and rekindle the enthusiasm you once felt for them. When we first begin a new project, or start a new job, we are excited about the possibilities and eager to get moving! Over time, we can lose that enthusiasm for a variety of reasons. Travel back in time for a moment, and think about what got you so excited at the beginning. What made your heart beat a little faster? Recapture that feeling and hang onto it! Even if your tasks aren't anything to be really excited about, at least think of some positive benefits to doing them. For example, list the ways they will benefit your children, your spouse, yourself, your job or your home. Identify the payoff, and focus on that. Even mundane tasks have some benefits. Sometimes it's just a matter of switching our mindset to see the positive side.

4) Baby Steps - Sometimes the hardest part is actually getting started. A project seems so monstrous that we cringe at the thought of all that time and energy we'll have to expend. Instead of overwhelming yourself, start small. Set a timer for 15 minutes and just start working on it. Allow yourself to stop after 15 minutes if you really want to. But most often, once we actually start working on something, we won't want to stop. Don't focus on the big picture, look at the smaller details and take them on one at a time. Any large task seems manageable once we break it down into smaller steps.

5) Care of the Body - Sometimes our feelings of fatigue are caused by physical deficiencies, not mental. Be sure you are getting enough rest, eating food that nourishes your body, drinking enough water, getting enough exercise, etc. Especially when we're very busy, we tend to grab the quickest, easiest meals, which aren't always the best choice for our bodies. Eating a lot of highly processed foods and sugar is like putting watered-down gasoline into our cars. In order for our cars to run smoothly, we need to maintain them properly, and so it is with our bodies also. Remember, the body is the vehicle for the mind and soul! ;-)

Finally, remember to reward yourself from time to time, and be gentle with yourself! There will always be things that "need" to be done. But some of us take on way more than we can handle, and our lives turn into a pit of drudgery because of it. Try to eliminate the things that truly don't bring you joy, or at least minimize the time you spend on them. Do what you can, and let the rest go. Or ask for help. Don't feel you have to do everything yourself.

Remember that motivation, just like happiness, is something we CHOOSE. We may need to give ourselves a little push at the beginning, but once we get into the right mindset, it's simple to stay there if we choose to.

By: Wendy Betterini

Attitude -The Winning Edge !!

Attitude is the most vital attribute toward success, if it is lacking so will the results you achieve. If while playing golf and on the drive you apply minimal effort to your swing, the result you achieve will be meager because the ball will not go very far. The same is true with life, if you do not apply a winning attitude on a consistent basis your life may falter as well.

Winning is determined many times by attitude in sporting events and even more so in the game of life. One player may be limited, but with the right mental attitude, they can make those limitations seem forgettable. On the other hand, one might have an abundance of talent but without the right mental attitude, they will never reach their ultimate potential. Attitude separates excellence from mediocrity.

Anonymous quotes

"Your Attitude Determines Your Altitude."

"Attitude Is A Little Thing That Makes A Big Difference."

"The Pleasure You Get From Life Is Equal To The Attitude You Put Into It!"

To develop that winning attitude you must be crystal-clear with your purpose and apply the courage to act accordingly. Condition the mind to link pleasure to anything needed to reach your goal, which includes adversities that cross your path.

Develop a state of mind that failure does not exist while being proactive. Results are all that matter. Focus on results not failure. You get more of what you focus on. If you do not get the results of your desire, evaluate the process and formulate modifications until you do.

Applying this mind-set, you will find yourself a great deal more content and productive. Fear of failure withers away and results thrive in this environment. Remember there are no strikeouts in the game of life. In addition, the more times you swing the bat the more your skills develop and closer you become to hitting life's home runs.

The right mental attitude will take you to a level of perseverance through most challenges. Make your beliefs a conviction that you can and will make the progress you desire. If there is an obstacle in your way, take another approach, or go around it.

Utilize the information as a learning experience, and eventually you will be back on the path closer to your goal than you were before. The right mental attitude will maximize your potential. Get the most from your life with that winning edge!

By Steven Lawrence Ferrel

Managing Ineffective Performance !!

~~by Kadence Buchanan

Job performance is considered ineffective when productivity is below a standard considered acceptable at a given time. Most instances of poor job performance are attributable to a small proportion of the work force. Ineffective performers consume considerable managerial time and drive the overall company performance backwards.

The causes of ineffective performance can be rooted in the person, the job, the manager, or the company. Usually ineffective performance is caused by a combination of several factors as Durbin states. He discusses the model of control, in order to improve ineffective performance. It is divided into seven steps that could be followed in sequence and are to define effective or acceptable performance, to detect deviation from acceptable performance, to confront the substandard performer, to set improvement goals, to select and implement an action plan for improvement, to reevaluate performance after a time interval and to continue or discontinue the action plan.

Corrective actions for ineffective performers are divided into managerial actions and techniques, and organizational programs. Managerial actions include close supervision and corrective discipline. Organizational programs include career counseling, outplacement, and job redesign (previously discussed). Businesses today may use counseling and constructive criticism to deal with poor performers. As a formal discussion, counseling includes criticism, in order for the low-performer to understand the problem, and strive towards its solution, by developing his or her potential. The challenge from the company's side is to use a skillful manager to perform this kind of help, and to balance the situation of the unsatisfied company and the stressed employee.

Avoiding termination procedures, operations may seek to redesign the job or replace the employee, in a different area that suits him/her better. Job satisfaction is then enhanced, as the employer is knowledgeable of the company's actions regarding his/her well-being and has the opportunity of successfully develop.

Finally, empowerment can increase employees' performance levels. This is explained in terms of allowing employees greater freedom, autonomy and self-control over their work, and responsibility for decision-making. Empowerment takes a variety of forms and managers frequently have different intentions and organizations differ in the degree of discretion with which they can empower employees and its popularity has been driven by the need to respond quickly to customer needs, to develop cross-functional links to take advantage of opportunities that are too local or too fleeting to be determined centrally. Better morale and compensation for limited career paths are other advantages. Potential difficulties include the scope for chaos and conflict, the breakdown of hierarchical control, a lack of clarity about where responsibility stops and demoralization on the part of those who do not want additional authority. Successful empowerment will require feedback on performance from a variety of sources, rewards with some group component, an environment tolerant to mistakes and a widely distributed information system.

Employee Management: How Do You Want To Be Treated?

Employee Management: How Do You Want To Be Treated?

Understanding how people want to be treated by their manager will help you become more affective as a leader. Here is a list of things all employees have in common when it comes to how they want to be treated.

"A leader is best when people barely know that they exist, Not so good when people obey and acclaim them, Worse when they despise them.

When a leader fails to honour people, People fail to honour them.

But, of a good leader who talks little and listens well, When their work is done and goals are fulfilled, People will all say, we did it ourselves"

Loa – Tzy.

I believe that most employees at their core are very similar. Regardless of race, gender, age or religion, most have certain things in common. If we are to be a successful manager, it is imperative that we understand the human elements that allow us as managers to stay "on top of our game". That is, understanding how people want to be treated by their manager. Here is a list of things that I believe all employees have in common when it comes to how they want to be treated.

1. Employees want to be valued.

Over fifty percent of all working Canadians that leave their jobs do so because they feel that they are not valued. Have you ever been told that you provide little or no value to the organization, been humiliated for making the wrong decision or been told that you are a liability to the company. If so, then you understand how important it is to be valued. Valuing people because they are human beings and the foundation of our company is reason enough to be ethical in our approach with people.

2. Employees want to be treated with respect.

Author Arnold Glasow said, " The respect of those you respect is worth more than the applause of the multitude". Many employees desire the respect of the people they work for. Respect is oxygen for the soul and when managers give it freely, it creates a positive work environment. Respecting employees gives them the freedom to perform at a high level and the incentive to work with excellence.

3. Employees want to be trusted.

My dad once told me that to be trusted is a greater compliment than to be loved. Although we as managers cannot control if employees trust us, we can control our actions toward them and we can give them our trust. While it is true that we can be taken advantage of, it is also true that trust creates the foundation of a strong relationship with our people because it allows for open communication, maintains confidences and focuses on shared goals.

4. Employees want to be appreciated.

Employees want to be appreciated for the skill and effort that they bring to the work place. Letting employees know that they matter builds their self confidence and self esteem to the point that they make decisions and take action because, they know it is right and needs to be done. As a manager, let people know that you appreciate their efforts. Publicly thank them at every opportunity and give them the credit that they deserve. As one of my mentors Warren Brent Carroll once told me, "people need to walk in the sunshine and not in the shadows".

5. Employees want to be understood.

A great inventor by the name of Charles Kettering once said, "there is a great difference between knowing and understanding. You can know a lot about something and not really understand it. The same is true about people." As managers we can be quick to find fault with employees who don’t conform to our thought process or patterns that we know work. Sometimes our employees act differently because they have not had the advantages that we have had. As managers we ought to consider extending ourselves to them on their level and showing flexibility in our thought process. Our employees are creatures of emotions, just like us.

Author and co-author of several professional articles, Nick Pollice's expertise is in Sales Management Courses, Sales Seminars and Operations Management.