Doug

Doug Culture, Engagement 0

Many years ago, the late great Peter Cook appeared on the Clive Anderson chat show in the guise of a fictitious old school football manager by the name of Alan Latchley. During this parody he extolled the virtues of inspiring his players through the use of “motivation, motivation, motivation. The 3 M’s.”

Fast forward 30 years and I was fascinated to read the following quote from Carlo Ancelotti, the current manager of Real Madrid and a modern day management legend. “Our job is not to motivate the players. Our job is not to demotivate them by not providing the challenges and goals their talents need.”

To my mind a similar argument could also be made for the world of work.

Instead of focussing their efforts on motivating staff through the use of inspirational speeches, social events and forced fun, companies may well be far better off by inverting their perspective and approaching the issue from the other end of the spectrum. In other words asking themselves the question, “how can we operate in such a manner that doesn’t demotivate our employees?” At which point the thorny issues of contending with mind-numbing bureaucracy, poor man-management, failing IT and overtly complicated and time-consuming processes and procedures would undoubtedly come to the fore. As an MD of mine once said, “We’re all much happier when thinks just work.”

Indeed, I think it is safe to assume all employees start out motivated. I believe it was Reid Hoffman, the founder of LinkedIn, who once remarked that if a potential new recruit required motivation, then they need not apply to his company.

So how is it that a highly motivated and engaged employee can end up de-motivated and dis-engaged? Whilst there is no single answer to this question, it is one that companies should spend far more of their time analysing, as to my mind this approach can often reap far greater reward for far less time and effort.

Psychologist have long since proven that the we humans feel loss twice as much as we feel gain. In other words, losing £100 hurts us more than gaining £100.

I would also contend that experiencing frustrations at work, impact us twice as much as when we are on the end of a smooth, frictionless experience. And it is these experiences, when aggregated over time, that serve to slowly diminish our levels of motivation and engagement, and often lead us to conclude that if the organisation we work for doesn’t really care about the manner in which we experience work, then why should we care about what is ultimately produced.

Unfortunately, too many organisations seem to forget this fact, and assume that all employees come ready made with an unlimited supply of motivation. Considering the amount of time and money companies invest in analysing Customer Experience, in a bid to ensure they are as easy to do business with as possible, I find it odd that many organisations fail to apply a similar approach to ensure that their employees are able to physically deliver this very same service in an equally easy to do manner. For in the same way a customer can choose to take their custom elsewhere, so too can an employee elect to work for someone else. And in what is becoming an ever more challenging recruitment market, is this a risk companies can afford to take?

Doug Culture, Engagement 0

The Keeper Test came to prominence some years back following the publication of Netflix’s infamous culture deck. The test is designed to be asked of a line manager and basically goes as follows:

If a person on your team were to quit tomorrow, would you fight to keep them and attempt to change their mind?

Or would you accept their resignation? Possibly with a sense of relief?

If the answer was the latter, then Netflix advocated that the employee in question be offered a severance package and immediately exited from the business. In their place the line manager should then seek to recruit and replace them with an outstanding candidate that they would fight to keep.

I propose a variation on this test, but before I do I think a little context is in order.

Firstly, research has shown that culture is not uniform throughout an organisation, and that the idea of a single culture existing in any organisation is a misnomer. In fact, the difference in culture found within a single organisation has often been found to differ to a greater extent than when comparing the culture of one supposedly good company to another not so good company. The reality is culture is micro, not macro and differs between teams and between departments. In short culture is local.

Which brings me to my second point. The single biggest influence on an employee and the culture of the team in which they work is their nearest manager – their line manager. This is the individual that sets the tone of the immediate environment in which the direct report works, and as such their influence on the employee experience cannot be underestimated.

Once again research supports this viewpoint. A 2022 survey by the Cranfield School of Management found employees were 3.4 times more likely to feel engaged when they felt well supported by their line manager. Indeed, employees feeling trusted and supported had the “greatest impact” on how engaged an employee was at work. A further CMI study in 2023 found that 28% of those surveyed cited a negative relationship with their manager as the reason for leaving a job, whilst of those who told researchers they had an ineffective manager, one-third said they were less motivated to do a good job.

This truly came home to me some years back when I was called upon to deliver a leaving speech for my then line manager. In preparing my speech I reflected upon my time working for him and how much I had come to enjoy and value the time we had spent working together. I quickly realised that the same could not be said for all the line managers throughout my career, and in so doing I suddenly came to appreciate just how big a factor they had played, not just in terms of my enjoyment of a job, but also in the development of my career.

All my most fulfilling and enjoyable roles had been due in no small part to the positive and supportive leadership provided to me by my immediate manager. Conversely, the least enjoyable periods of my career were almost entirely accompanied by being led by a poor manager. Indeed, I’ve worked for a great company with a poor line manager and had a dreadful experience. Conversely, I’ve also worked for a company that left a lot to be desired and yet been fully engaged thanks to the fantastic leadership of my direct manager.

In one final example, I recall one job role, where my experience had gone from one extreme to the other – from not particularly enjoying the role to positively loving it. I was doing the same job for the same company. The only thing that had changed – you guessed it – my line manager.

Which brings me to my alternative version of the Keeper Test. Instead of the test being directed at line managers and asking them to evaluate whether they would keep members of their team, I hereby advocate a role reversal and propose employees should periodically be asked in confidence as to whether they would fight to keep their line manager, should they theoretically leave.

In doing so I feel an organisation would quickly come to understand the effectiveness of their management and identify areas where further leadership development is required.

Now don’t get me wrong – I’m not advocating organisations summarily dismiss their line managers on the back of an employee survey, but I do think it would throw up significant insights as to the effectiveness of their managers. I know many companies already include a question on the leadership qualities of their line manager within their annual engagement survey, which demonstrates they are starting to recognise the importance of line management upon employee engagement. The question remains however, how effective are they in leveraging this information to positively impact the engagement scores of their organisation?

About Doug

Posts by Doug Clay: