8 million UK workers are miserable. Are you one of them?

According to research reported by the Chartered Management Institute, almost eight million of us workers in the UK are unhappy in the roles we currently occupy.

The incisive, in-depth, profound, comprehensive (and 100% sarcasm free) research into worker satisfaction found that 28 per cent of workers are unhappy in their role, although only 25 per cent are currently looking for career development opportunities elsewhere. How many of the 25 per cent listen to the news, I wonder?

Also, according to the findings, UK workers think a good salary is the key to happiness at work, with 64 per cent of respondents stating that a good salary would make them altogther more cheerful. Herzberg, where are you now that your transatlantic cousins need you?

Who commissions these surveys? I though that the Ministry for Research into the Flipping Obvious was one of the quangos that was wound up just after the current coalition government was elected?

Let's face it, we're living at a 17-year high point in unemployment. According to the Office of National Statistics, the unemployment rate stands at 8.3%. Between July and September of this year, UK unemployment rose by 129,000 between July and September to 2.62 million.

For the UK's youth, the situation is even more bleak, with over 20% of those aged 16-24 out of employment.

To make matters worse, inflation is wobbling at around the 5% mark, and bank interest rates for those fortunate enough to have any savings are so low that the biscuit tin under the bed seems an attractive location for any few coppers remaining at the end of the month.

Bearing all the above in mind, is it actually surprising that UK workers are not currently constantly convulsed with laughter?

What is irritating is not so much the fact that the outcome of such reseach could be predicted in advance, but that there is a hint that if employees are unhappy, it is inevitably the fault of management who must thereofore also do whatever it can to turn its workforce into deliriously happy chappies!

Or am I just being Mr Grumpy?

New Survey Demolishes Established HR Thinking

Regular readers of HR case Studies will be aware of the editorial team’s scepticism at the number of surveys that are commissioned in the HR world. Normally such surveys are thinly disguised marketing tools to “prove” that the service offered by the sponsor is the answer to all the world’s problems, and that you’d be daft not to give them a call and beg them to help you. Generally the surveys tell us in quantitative terms (and attempt to blind us with statistics) something that even the dumbest of us would have taken for granted anyway.

But a recent survey undertaken by the Chartered Management Institute radically breaks with this tradition and reveals something that will leave readers slack-jawed and wide-eyed with amazement.

It seems (brace yourselves) that managers might be to blame for worsening workplace morale.

Recoil with shock all those of you that thought that good morale in the workplace was actually the responsibility of the outsourced catering staff (See Gary Hamel’s seminal work, “Syrup Sponge and Custard: Unlocking Employee Engagement with Tasty Desserts")

Faint with horror anyone who still clings onto the well-researched theory that there is a demonstrable link between the United Kingdom’s performance in the Eurovision Song Contest and workplace productivity (See Ulrich and Brockbank’s influential Harvard Business Review article “Boom Bang-A-Bang: Competitive Advantage Through Employee Polyphony" (Foreword by Sir Terry Wogan)

Stagger under the impact of the paradigm shift that explodes the view that it’s really the responsibility of the employees themselves to keep morale high (see Paul McKenna’s bestseller, “I Can Make You Rather Jolly”)

The ground-breaking conclusion came as a result of the CMI's "Spring economic outlook survey" which found that 70% of managers admitted that morale in their organisations has dropped over the last six months. Throwing all the well-attested theory aside, the Chartered Management Institute has responded to the findings by suggesting that managers themselves could be responsible for the decline in morale.

Incredible, isn’t it? Just not at all what you'd expect.

Six Steps to Transformational Leadership

How to simply motivate a group of employees is one thing. But how to be the sort of leader that influences the financial performance and survival of an organisation is another.

It’s been said before within the pages of this humble blog that digging deep into the depths of dry academic journals occasionally unearths a gem of an article that contains something of great value and wider applicability.

Such a gem is to be found in the pages of Gary Yukl’s Leadership in Organisations, where the concept of Transformational Leadership is explored in detail.

So, if you wish to be the sort of leader who can inspire followers and enhance their self-confidence and commitment to the mission, here are the six factors which evidence indicates are most likely to deliver results.

Articulate a clear and appealing vision
Give a clear vision of what the organisation could achieve or become, communicating it well, often, and using a variety of ways to do so. Use colourful, emotional language that includes vivid imagery, metaphors, anecdotes and stories.

Explain how the vision can be attained
Articulating the vision is not enough: the leader also needs to convince followers that it is feasible and can be achieved. Make a link between the vision and the credible strategy for turning it into reality.

Act with confidence and optimism
Your followers will not have faith in any vision unless you can demonstrate your self confidence and conviction. Remain optimistic about success, even in the face of temporary setbacks. Emphasize what has been accomplished rather than how much more is yet to be done.

Express confidence in your followers
Often described as the Pygmalion Effect, research has found that people perform better when a leader has high expectations for them and has confidence in them. It’s particularly important that you foster confidence and optimism when the task is difficult. So remind your team of how they overcame obstacles and triumphed on earlier occasions. Tell them that the are at least as good as an earlier team that was successful in performing the same type of activity.

Use dramatic symbolic actions to emphasize key values.
As Yukl states, “a vision is reinforced by leadership behaviour that is consistent with it.” He quotes an example of a new CEO who personally destroyed some low-quality versions of the company’s product that had been sold previously as seconds. So the message is clear: if necessary be dramatic to emphasize your key values.

Lead by example
Quite simply: your actions speak louder than your words, so set an example of exemplary behaviour in day-to-day interactions with subordinates. If you ask your team to observe a standard, keep it yourself. If you need your team to make sacrifices, do the same. To paraphrase Yukl: the values you wish to convey need to be demonstrated in your daily behaviour, and consistently, not just when it’s convenient.

So dear readers: what do you think?

There is a time for all things . . .

Vision Statement. Corporate Mission. IT Evangelists. The business world has been stealing religious terminology with glee for many years now. Perhaps it’s time to learn a few deeper lessons from those in religious leadership too.

The entire editorial team of HR Case Studies team has recently been watching a series of DVDs from last year’s Leadership Summit at Willow Creek Church in Chicago. Willow Creek is one of the most attended churches in North America. Each year Willow Creek’s Leadership Summit endeavours to:

Transform Christian Leaders around the world with an injection of vision, skill development and inspiration for the sake of the local church

And the speakers are slightly better known than you might expect from a church gathering! It’s not Doris from the Mothers Union or Akela from the Brownies that accepts the invitation to speak at Willow Creek: it’s Jack Welch, Gary Hamel, Tony Blair and Bono!

That in itself is worthy of thought. How can a church attract such eminent leaders to speak at its annual leadership conference?

But Bill Hybels (founder of Willow Creek Community Church) seems to be one of those individuals whose wisdom and insight into leadership extends far beyond the pews.

Try his “What season are you in?” question for starters. Although his question is primarily intended to be answered by church leaders, his categorisation of the various phases of an enterprise into Growth, Consolidation, Transition, Malaise or Reinvention is one which can equally be applied to businesses.

Or to us as individuals.

What season are you in?

Where have all the (British) heroes gone?

Right. A quick test. Give me the names of 10 British individuals who would feature in a book on strong, inspirational and talented leaders who also serve as role models worthy of emulation.

Get beyond about seven? Me neither.

But is that because Britain is (contrary to Simon Cowell's assertion) devoid of talent, or is it because as Brits we're such a critical and cynical bunch?

The editorial team of HR Case Studies have recently been reading a book (co-authored by a Brit and an American incidentally) which focuses on developing innate personal strengths and talents rather than concentrating on eliminating weaknesses and acquiring new skills. The book is liberally laced with anecdotes from the lives of leaders and entrepreneurs from across the Atlantic - Tiger Woods, Walt Disney, Bill Gates, Colin Powell, Charles Colson, Cole Porter. Although there's a tacit acceptance that all these individuals have weaknesses and failings (perhaps Tiger Woods would be unlikely to grace the pages of an update edition!) there's nevertheless a belief that despite such failings, their strengths and achievements are worthy of acclaim, and that we can learn from their example.

Who would feature if the book was restricted to British leaders and entrepreneurs who are also considered to be good role models?

Forget any football players (they're all overpaid philanderers), cricket players (they drunkenly pilot plundered pedalos), politicians (expense-grabbing warmongers), rock musicians (all on drugs, living in the Bahamas), scientists (elite swots), business leaders (earn too much), military leaders (political stooges), HR professionals (spend too much time pondering the reason for their existence…) And on and on we go.

But are we really so lacking in role models that we couldn't scrape together enough to fill the pages of a "Brits Only" book similar to the one above? Or is it more the case that we're such a cynical bunch that the slightest sign of weakness, failure or an error of judgement in a character and they are immediately and eternally cast onto the heap marked "Villains".

Think we need to reconsider some of the guys in the Villains heap and see if we can't move them into the rather small heap for Heroes.

Any suggestions who should be there?

It’s lonely at the top

The recent recall of millions of their vehicles worldwide because of safety concerns has understandably led to not only a battering of Toyota’s reputation but also a drop in morale in the company’s workforce.

Recently, Toyota president Akio Toyoda exchanged his business suit for a worker's uniform to speak to the company's Japanese employees and hopefully get them (unlike their cars) firing on all cylinders.

In an unusual admission of vulnerability he admitted to the employees, dealers and suppliers who were present at the company headquarters for the address that the constant barrage of criticism had left him feeling lonely:

"I was feeling lonely as Toyota was being criticised repeatedly on TV and in the newspapers, and I was being chased by the media."

Not to worry though, he also revealed that he felt protected by those employees that he had met when in the USA when appearing before a US congressional hearing to answer questions on safety concerns.

"I had been thinking I was striving to protect those people, but I realised I was actually being protected by them. I was deeply moved and thought I was really lucky to be a member of Toyota."

• Is it a sign of strength or weakness for business leaders to admit to such feelings?

Echte Leader schauen nicht in Führungsbücher, sondern in die Augen ihrer Mitarbeiter

Echte Leader schauen nicht in Führungsbücher, sondern in die Augen ihrer Mitarbeiter

The HR Case Studies editorial staff liked the quotation so much that they decided to write a blog about it!

In English this roughly translates as "A real leader doesn't look in leadership books, but into the eyes of his employees"

By well-timed coincidence this also reflects the view of a new report by the Work Foundation which suggests that the best way for leaders to achieve outstanding performance is by following a ‘highly people-centred approach’ and to focus on stretching and enabling their staff so they can excel.

Admittedly, Management Today (who have just reported on the Work Foundation's findings) are rather sceptical, but the study is still worth a glance. (Ocular pun number one!)

The Work Foundation’s latest report is based on a two-year qualitative study of about 260 people at six big UK companies, including Tesco and Unilever about what they thought of their leaders, and leadership more generally. The conclusion was that those considered ‘outstanding’ rather than merely ‘good’ leaders had certain things in common.

Rather than focusing on tasks, they look to understand people and their motives
They develop people through challenge and support, not training and advice
They’re self-confident without being arrogant.
They worry as much about the mood and behaviour of their people as their organisational objectives

Sadly, Management Today is not convinced that this study provides any objective evidence for a direct link between a people-centred approach and better corporate performance. "As far as we can see, it just proves that leaders who focus on people are more popular with their people" protests the eminent journal.

But the Germans certainly seem to agree!

Focus on people not targets, managers told

• What do you think?

The Arnold Schwarzenegger Business Lesson: Judgement Day for a blame culture

Fascinating.

Just watching people blame each other is enough to establish a culture of blame in an organisation.

The current edition of New Scientist reports on an article snappily entitled, “Blame contagion: The automatic transmission of self-serving attributions” which was recently published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, and concludes that “we already know that people are more likely to blame others when they themselves have been blamed - a 'kick-the-dog' kind of effect." But, according to the results of recent experiments, a blame attitude can even spread to mere witnesses of a public dressing-down.

In one experiment, run by Nathanael Fast of the Department of Management and Organization, University of Southern California, one group of volunteers were asked to watch footage of California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger blaming others for a failed strategy, and a separate group to watch a different clip of him accepting personal responsibility for it.

When asked to write about a failure of their own afterwards, those in the first group (i.e. those who had watched Arnie terminating his team with blame!) were 30 per cent more likely to blame this failure on others than those in the second group.

The findings of the report are quite frightening: not only is blame socially contagious, but when people blame others for their mistakes, they learn less and perform worse.

"Leaders who want to prevent such a culture from spreading should be careful not to be seen pointing the finger," concludes the report.

New Scientist: Why the blame game shouldn't be played in public

• Is it realistic to aim for a completely blame-free culture in the competitive organisation of today?

Nine (Business) Ladies Dancing

"Where are the influential women?" was a comment left in response to the HR Case Studies item on Management Thinkers earlier this week.

So, let's restore the balance a bit with a few female firsts (again courtesy of the excellent Economist publication, "The World of Business" - a snip at £9.99)

1809 Mary Kies - first woman to receive a US patent (for weaving straw in hatmaking)
1963 Katherine Graham - first woman CEO of a Fortune 500 company (The Washington Post Co.)
1997 Marjorie Scardino - first woman CEO of a FTSE 100 company (Pearson)
1999 Carly Fiorina - first woman CEO in the 30-company Dow Jones Industrial Average (Hewlett-Packard)
2001 Clara Furse - first woman to become CEO of the London Stock Exchange
2002 Baroness Sarah Hogg -  first chairwoman of a FTSE 100 company (3i)
2006 Bishop Katherine Jefferts Scori -first woman leader in the Anglican Church
2009 Helen Alexander - first woman to head the Confederation of British Industry (CBI)
2009 Ursula Burns - first African-American woman to head a Fortune 500 company in the first woman-to-woman CEO handover in a Fortune 500 company

Chicken Madras, Special Rice and a good manager please.

It’s Friday; it’s been a long week; it’s an “according to a survey” item, so … all together now, after three 1,2,3… GROAN

Right. Down to business

According to a survey of 22,000 staff in 18 countries only 50% of UK employees rate their managers as effective

The results of the survey conducted by the Kenexa Research Institute (KRI) reveal something that simply no-one could possibly have expected. Ever. Apparently (so don’t faint when you read this) being a "good manager" has a significant impact on the engagement levels of staff and their overall perception of the company. Earth shattering.

It seems that employees in the UK define a good manager as someone who keeps his or her commitments, evaluates employees' performance fairly, makes use of employees ideas, quickly solves problems and practices open, two-way communication. We wouldn’t have expected any of that would we?

Based on the results of the survey, KRI said: "Effective managers are respectful, considerate and fair, as well as good organisers who can clearly communicate work expectations and provide feedback.” Astonished? Me too.

So, the only decision to me made is where to go for the best managers.

The scores on the doors reveal that employees in India (68%) reported the highest ratings of managerial effectiveness, followed by Brazil (61%), the United States (60%), Russia and the Gulf countries (57%), Canada (56%), China (53%), Germany (51%), the UK coming eighth with (50%).

Countries to avoid are France (41%) whose workers reported the lowest ratings, with Japan (43%), Italy (44%) and Spain (46%) only slightly ahead.

Chicken Madras anyone?

• Any suggestions why India scores so well, and France so poorly?

Fag-Ash Lil appointed as FTSE 100 Chief Executive

A woman (not the new Chief Executive of a FTSE Company) smoking

Alison Cooper’s appointment as chief executive of Imperial Tobacco means that the number of women in charge of FTSE 100 companies leapt by 25% yesterday. She joins Dame Marjorie Scardino (Pearson Publishing), Angela Ahrendts (Burberry Fashion), Cynthia Carroll (Anglo American Mining) and Katherine Garrett-Cox (Alliance Trust Finance) in the select group of women at the helm of UK companies.

She is now likely to become one of Britain's best-paid women. Last year she earned £1.3m, but she will clearly be expecting to pick up more in pay, perks and other incentives if her objective of increasing worldwide sales of the Company’s brands is successful.

Her predecessor (40 cigarettes per day) has (bewilderingly!) consistently refused to accept the direct link between smoking and lung cancer.

Ms Cooper (Occasional smoker) has yet to make public her opinion on the subject.

Guardian: Imperial Tobacco appoints FTSE 100's fifth female chief

• Does Alison Cooper’s appointment to this role further the cause of women in senior business positions?

"Surf's Up!" says Harriet.

Harriet Harman, the UK minister for women, has told a Treasury Select Committee that a lack of women at the top of City firms is due to "institutionalised gender discrimination" and that action is needed to end the "nightmare" of male-dominated leadership of major companies.

Women need to get on their boards and ride the waves along with the guys said Ms Harman. (OK, she didn’t say exactly that, but sure that you get the drift.)

Apparently only 19% of senior employees at the Treasury are women, leading Ms Harman to say that both the private and public sector have room for improvement.

However, she said the UK would not be following the lead of Norway, which introduced a 40% quota for female membership on the boards of its largest companies.

Oddly enough, although it was new fathers that were also highlighted by the Equality and Human Rights Commission yesterday (for not taking their full entitlement to parental leave) chairman Trevor Phillips told the same committee that women faced "chronic" discrimination in the City due to entrenched structures. And to make sure that the wrinklies didn’t feel neglected, he also said City firms prioritised staff between 25 and 39, giving the impression that those over 40 had "nothing to contribute".

BBC Business News: Get more women on boards - Harman

• Should, as Harriet Harman suggest, firms take the lead themselves and encourage flexible and part-time working?
• What do you think of Norway’s approach of introducing a quota for female membership on the boards of its largest companies?
• Speaking at the same committee. labour MP Mark Todd said some industries needed a whole culture change in terms of their attitudes to female employees. What does he mean?
• “Make sure you have diverse boards and a proper meritocratic approach,” said Ms Harman. What does this mean in simple English?

Employers are unaware of the talents of women

Helen Alexander has been appointed as the new head of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) employers' group, the first woman to occupy the position of president since the group was founded in 1965. In her first interview she has stated that "industry in the UK is missing out by failing to exploit the talents of women." The statistics certainly seem to support her: of the board directors in the FTSE 100 index of leading UK businesses, only 11% are women. Ms. Alexander doesn't believe that there is prejudice against women in the boardroom, but suspects that many employers are simply aware of the talent that women can offer. She also stated that there was plenty of female talent around but does not personally favour positive discrimination.

CBI calls for more business women

• What's the current legislation on Equal Pay and Sex Discrimination in the workplace?
• Are there particular skills that only women can bring to the workplace, and in particular to the boardroom?
• Thinking of your answer to the last question, are there certain roles that are best undertaken by women?
• What examples can you provide of women who have "made it to the top" in what is a business area predominantly populated by men?
• What does Helen Alexander mean by "positive discrimination" and what's the current legislation on this?

Trust the boss? Not me!

Click

A recent survey undertaken by Management Today and the Institute of Leadership and Management shows the average British worker as a rather suspicious person when it comes to putting trust in The Boss! The survey reveals that about a third of British workers don't trust their managers and leaders to do the right thing. According to the survey of 5700 workers, 31% of non-managers and 28% of managers say that they have ‘no’ or ‘low’ trust in their management team. Worrying statistics! The factors assessed in the survey were ability, understanding, fairness, openness, integrity and consistency. The report highlights some interesting variations: The larger the organisation, the less trust employees are likely to show in its leadership; the longer an employee has been with the organisation the less they trust their management team; women are generally more trusted and trusting than men; the highest levels of trust in management is to be found in private sector organisations.

The report's conclusions are simple and stark: Establishing trust takes time and is improved when the relationship between leader and follower is close. This finding has important implications for new CEOs of very large organisations, many of which are in the public sector and feature long-serving employees.The CEOs of these organisations have the steepest hill to climb to establish trust, and they will not be able to reach the summit without demonstrating a strong sense of personal integrity. If they can’t show the qualities of principle and honesty, and that they are in it for the long haul, not just as a lucrative or advantageous career move, they will not be trusted.

• Are these results surprising, or is it generally to be expected that employees will distrust their management teams?
• Why are employees in larger organisations less likely to trust their bosses?
• What might be the reasons why women are generally more trusted and trusting than men?
• Private sector industry bosses enjoy a higher level of trust than their counterparts in the public sector. Why might this be?
• What follow-up research might be useful for managers to obtain further information on why employees do 0r don't trust them?
• The survey assessed ability, understanding, fairness, openness, integrity and consistency as signs of a trustworth boss. Are these the best measures of a good leader?