A New Take on Employee Retention: Thanks for stopping by

What would happen if the mission of your Human Resources Department looked more like the mission of a university’s job placement center?

Last week, my colleague Beth and I co-led a workshop on innovation and collaborative problem solving for a group of 30 leaders from a company that provides information technology services and systems integration for government agencies. Our workshop was part of a 9-month program during which participants work on teams to apply the leadership skills they have been learning to one of the organization’s most critical challenges. At the end of the program, the teams present their recommendations to a panel of executives. One team had been asked to develop a retention strategy for the organization’s employees. Since Beth and I wanted to encourage the teams to use some of the concepts we had been teaching as they began work on their assignments, I engaged the team in a conversation about retention.

I started asking the team questions that seemed more upsetting than helpful. For example I said, “I’ve heard you talk about the costs of employees leaving the company, what are the costs associated with employees staying too long? What are the benefits of helping employees move on to pursue careers elsewhere? How long should an employee stay?” I’m pretty sure that the team stopped thinking about my questions the minute I left their table to visit with another team. I however spent the rest of the week thinking about employee retention.

It is very easy to find data and articles about the costs of employee turnover. You know what’s hard? Finding data and articles about the costs of employees staying with a company.

Consider this list of attitudes people hold, but only share with trusted friends and their family:

  • I am bored and burnt out, but looking for a new job is more painful than staying
  • If I can hang in there for another couple of years, my stock options will be fully vested
  • I’m comfortable and good at what I do. My job is easy as long as things don’t change. I just need to make sure things don’t change.

What is the opportunity cost to an organization – especially an organization desperate for innovation and agility – of retaining people who stay primarily because it’s easier than leaving?

It may appear that I’m arguing for more draconian performance management policies, I’m not. I don’t think we should ferret out people who are less than thrilled to show up every day and show them the door. I am actually wondering what would change if organizations thought about retention from the perspective of the employee rather than from the perspective of the company.

From the employee’s point-of-view, there will be times when long-term job stability is valuable and there will be times when long-term job stability is merely comfortable or at least more comfortable than being out of a job. There may even be times when job stability inhibits an employee from pursuing a risky aspiration. To a recent college graduate, feeling a sense of belonging while being challenged and getting paid may be more important than stability. To someone who is starting a family and thinking about investing in a home, stability probably feels essential.

Let me offer three purpose statements for Human Resources Departments, each of which focuses on an employee population with different needs for job stability.

For early-career employees…

Our mission is to prepare you to be successful in your next job (P.S. your manager and your team will help you be successful in your current job).

For mid-career employees…

Our mission is to find ways for our organization to create value from what lights you up.

For late-career employees…

Our mission is to help you transfer your skills, knowledge and experience to others while we explore ways to liberate you from the constraints of your current role.

Universities, The Peace Corps and The Military are three examples of institutions that recruit and develop talented people who then leave the institution to pursue bigger and better things. Even a company like McDonalds has been rethinking its relationship to employee retention. Whether or not the reality matches the advertising, I applaud McDonald’s latest campaign, “America’s best first job.”

I can’t help wondering what would have happened if the team assigned to recommend a retention strategy had framed their assignment as, “How might we redesign our business systems so that things improve when we help our most talented people leave for a better opportunity?”

Rotate!

Two of my daughters played volleyball in high school. They played a significantly more complicated version of the game than the one I remember playing in elementary school gym class. Whether the players are 8 years old or 18 years old, the game still involves six people on each side. When 8-year-olds play, everyone seems glued to a spot on the court until someone wins a point. When 18-year-olds play, everyone moves around the court in choreographed sprints that look fairly chaotic to the untrained eye.

When I played volleyball in elementary school, I remember standing in my designated spot until it was time for our team to serve the ball and then somebody would shout, “Rotate!” The shouter was often the same helpful person who would push you into the next position when you couldn’t remember whether to move left, right, up or back.

Individuals on work teams also need to rotate. Over time, teams can fall into patterns of behavior that create barriers to productive collaboration. David Kantor, a family systems psychologist and consultant uses the term, “structural dynamics” to describe the unseen patterns of interaction that characterize the way teams exchange and process ideas and opinions. Kantor’s original research focused on the structural dynamics at play in family systems. Kantor and his colleague William Lehr detailed their analysis of the structural dynamics underlying interactions among family members in their 1975 book, Inside the Family.

Kantor and Lehr introduced four stances or parts to be played by members of a social system that describe categories of action and reaction. The model, which became known as the Four Player Model gained popularity among organizational development consultants who use the tool to describe and analyze patterns of interaction on work teams. The model is especially helpful for understanding patterns of interaction among members of teams that stay together over time (e.g. an executive team) where the team becomes a sort of second family system complete with all the corresponding benefits and challenges.

Kantor and Lehr identified four basic behavior patterns which teams need in equal measure in order to get the best from an exchange of ideas and opinions. Each of the four action stances can be characterized by the behaviors typically demonstrated:

  • Moving means taking charge, offering ideas or leading the discussion
  • Following means agreeing or going along with what’s being proposed
  • Opposing means disagreeing or challenging what’s being proposed
  • By-standing means paying attention to what’s being discussed and how people are interacting

From the point-of-view of productive teamwork, each of the four stances is simultaneously useful and problematic. For example, when the team can’t seem to get going or loses focus, it’s critical that someone makes a move or takes charge. On the other hand, when the team is engaged in a productive dialogue on a difficult topic, or when the team is brainstorming, team members will resent someone intervening to take charge in order to move things along. Kantor points out that each behavior provides a specific benefit to the team. Moving provides direction, following provides completion, opposing provides correction and by-standing provides perspective.

Teams achieve productive balance in their interactions when individual team members rotate among the stances rather than getting stuck demonstrating the same behavior repeatedly. Over time, a team that lacks one of the behaviors will miss out on the attendant benefit. They might describe their team as “lacking direction,” (in other words, insufficient supply of moving) or “settling for half-baked solutions” (in other words, a deficiency of opposing). The behaviors can also feel out of balance when individuals get stuck taking the same one or two of the four stances.

While each behavior provides a specific benefit, repeated demonstration of the behavior by the same individual creates dysfunction. There is a significant risk that other team members will make less than flattering judgments about individuals who only bring one type of behavior to the team. Team members will use words like, “bossy” or “dictatorial” to describe individuals who only ever move. The individual who always follows and goes along looks “wishy-washy” to the rest of the team. Someone who only ever opposes will quickly develop a reputation as “negative” or “critical.” The by-standing team member who observes without ever sharing their perspective with the team will be viewed as “disengaged” or “aloof.”

When your team becomes sophisticated enough to move in and out of the stances the way players on volleyball teams cover the court, you’ll be sure to get the best each team member has to offer. Until then, you might want to designate someone to shout, “Rotate!” now and again.

 

Ironic Outcomes: Three Questions to Ask When you are Getting the Opposite of What you Want

A year or so ago I had a coaching conversation with a Human Resources Manager for a retail company. The manager confided in me that conflict made her uncomfortable. She described the lengths to which she would go to avoid raising challenging issues or delivering candid feedback. She feared that confrontation could destroy the rapport and trust she had cultivated with her colleagues; rapport and trust she depended on to ensure her colleagues included her as a thought partner and adviser.

By way of example, she described a damaged relationship with a colleague who had come to believe that she was trying to sabotage his career, “He accused me of going behind his back to his manager about complaints I had received from his direct reports.” As we talked, it became clear to both of us that her choice to avoid delivering timely, direct feedback to her colleague had metastasized into a judgment he now held about her motives. Her colleague no longer invited the HR Manager to his staff meetings and stopped visiting her office to seek input on key decisions. To put it another way: By going out of her way to avoid conflict, she had created conflict. She inadvertently got the exact opposite outcome that her behavior was designed to achieve.

Consider other familiar situations:

  • The person who wants to have close relationships with everyone yet ends up isolated because others judge his behavior as “needy” and overly personal.
  • The person who wants to avoid surprises and produce high-quality work ends up surprised by missed deadlines and avoidable errors because her micromanaged employees are afraid to take initiative and use their own judgment.
  • The well-intentioned manager, who wants to empower his direct-reports through delegation, yet ends up undermining everyone’s self-confidence when he is forced to rescue the project at the last minute after having steadfastly avoided giving any guidance along the way.
  • A co-worker who wants to influence the thinking of others by considering all sides of an issue, yet ends up being excluded from meetings because he is viewed as a contrarian that slows things down with useless observations and theoretical questions.

The behaviors described above go beyond simply being ineffective or even counterproductive. I refer to a situation where the result produced is the exact opposite of the result desired as an “ironic outcome.”

Ironic outcomes differ from outcomes that are unintended or counterproductive in that resolving the situation calls for a transformative level of self-awareness.

A Behavior Change to Fix an Unintended Outcome

When the consequences of our actions are unintended and unwanted, we can sometimes make a quick adjustment to our behavior to fix the problem. For example, a colleague gives me feedback that I haven’t requested input from one of my team members who seems reluctant to speak up in meetings. I start listening more actively to the team member and I notice greater engagement and better quality discussions.

Revising the way we Think and/or Feel to Fix a Pattern of Counterproductive Outcomes

When the consequences of our actions turn counterproductive, in other words our efforts are actually making things worse, we may need to look beyond our behaviors to our thoughts and feelings. For example, it might be uncomfortable for me to openly challenge my boss, but I’ve noticed that the boss actually seems to enjoy the give and take of debating ideas. She tends to favor advice from colleagues who openly disagree with her in meetings. Opting for a behavior driven by my anxiety has reduced my effectiveness as a team member. Perhaps I work on becoming comfortable with a more provocative style by finding non-threatening venues to try out the new behavior. Over time, I reduce my anxiety about speaking my mind candidly at team meetings.

Transforming our Beliefs when Confronted with Ironic Outcomes

When the outcomes turn ironic and what we’re getting betrays our intentions, it’s a clue that a pattern of behavior has taken charge. One telltale sign that we’re dealing with ironic outcomes is the way we justify our behavior. Instead of offering some version of “I don’t know. It seemed like a good idea at the time.” You might hear us offer a more rehearsed and philosophical justification: “I just think it’s wrong to…” or “People just don’t understand that…” etc.

Each of us, I suspect, has experienced the frustration of getting the opposite of what we want while offering a kind of righteous defense of our behaviors. When we invoke generalized value judgments to explain ourselves, we may be bumping up against situations where our underlying beliefs are at odds with the protocols of our roles. We can experience what Jack Mezirow refers to as a “disorienting dilemma.” We entertain self-defeating thoughts: “I’m not cut out for this job,” or “This is not the work I’m meant to do.”

Not all ironic outcomes augur catastrophe, but there is a long-term cost to repeatedly producing the opposite of what you want.

Three questions can help you rewire a pattern of behavior that produces ironic outcomes. A word of caution: the steps are few, but the elevation is great. You’ll either need the capacity to be brutally honest with yourself, or be fortunate enough to have someone in your life that can be honest with you without having his or her own axe to grind.

Question One: Where might you be exerting effort that is out of proportion with the situation?

In the case of our HR Manager, it took a lot of effort for her avoid and mislead her colleague. For example, when her colleague asked how she thought a contentious meeting had gone, she responded diplomatically, “People are a little anxious about all the changes, but I think everyone will be fine.” She felt in that moment the stress of holding back her true assessment of her colleague’s behavior and how it had led to several unproductive interactions.

Question Two: What beliefs are you using to justify your choices?

When pressed, the HR Manager admitted that she often avoids a confrontation because deep down she believes that leaders prefer to work with people who are supportive and positive. She assumes that her commitment to being supportive and positive will result in a seat at the table when leaders are making decisions. She also believes that because she is uncomfortable with confrontation, raising an issue will result in her appearing flustered and that will undermine her need to be seen as a competent professional. This is an example of what Robert Kegan and Lisa Laskow Lahey call, “competing commitments.

Question Three: Of the assumptions you use to explain your behaviors, which ones might need to be reframed? Which ones might be holding you back?

There are good reasons that we are attached to the belief systems that drive our behaviors. Our beliefs serve us well… until they don’t. Just because beliefs no longer serve us, does not mean that we can easily abandon them. Something valuable gets lost whenever we change our beliefs, and our aversion to loss makes change hard. The value that the HR Manager places on being supportive and positive has helped her become a trusted thought partner and popular boss.

The point here is not to abandon the belief, but to either demote it or re-conceptualize it. The HR Manager’s current and future roles will occasionally put her in situations where she will have to reconcile being “supportive” and “positive” with being “candid” and “direct.” For the HR Manager, learning to see candor and directness as supportive will allow her to raise issues in a positive manner, ultimately enhancing rather than undermining her professionalism.

Get Lost

Making Discoveries by Losing your Way

A standard compass is a device that helps you get oriented to your location because the needle of the compass points north no matter what direction you face. Being oriented means that you have a way to understand your position even when you are in new or strange surroundings. A traditional compass works because the location of magnetic north is fixed.

UM Compass

When it comes to orienting ourselves to our workplace dilemmas, we treat the assumptions that guide our traditional problem solving approaches like an immutable “magnetic north.” Unfortunately, the rules of the game in business by which we steer our organizations are shifting.

When your tried-and-true routines for making progress stop working and you can’t understand why, you become disoriented. If despite your best efforts a problem persists or you see an opportunity, but have no idea how to pursue it, your orientation to the situation may be part of the problem. The Unstuck Minds Compass is a tool to help you evaluate your orientation to your situation by pushing you to ask questions you have not been asking.

 

In today’s volatile, hypercompetitive environment, we can no longer set our course by the rules of the game that served as “magnetic north” since the emergence of the modern corporation. As an example, consider one magnetic north assumption that has oriented business leader’s thinking for generations, namely an organization’s relationship to its competition. One guiding assumption of business has been, “protect your secrets.” The formula for Coca-Cola must be kept in a vault. The source code for our software cannot be shared. Lately though, attitudes about competition and collaboration have begun to shift. A 2013 Harvard Business Review article written by Ben Hecht, the President and CEO of Living Cities declared, “Collaboration is the New Competition.” In his 2014 book about the emergence of new organizational forms called, “Reinventing Organizations,” Frederic Laloux wrote, “when an organization truly lives for its purpose, there is no competition. Anybody that can help to achieve the purpose on a wider scale or more quickly is a friend, an ally, not a competitor” (p. 195).

You can agree or disagree with what may seem like radical attitudes about competition. More importantly, you may want to ask yourself, “Which set of assumptions about the competition do I want to steer my organization by?” When your guiding assumptions become ineffective, you may need to start by letting go of your assumptions. Instead of getting oriented to your situations, you may need to start by losing your way. A standard compass keeps you oriented to predictable options, the Unstuck Minds Compass gets you reoriented so that you can venture into territory that presents unpredictable options.

Photo Credit: Peter Bernik