--- Anonymous

As part of the research for my book, I Quit, But Forgot To Tell You, we studied behaviors, values and attributes of bosses - anyone who managed anyone.  We found that there was one distinct factor that separated bosses who were engaged, successful, involved and respected from those whom employees either did not want to work for or simply, just quit. 

The critical factor was communication. 

While the importance of good communication is repeatedly written about, talked about, and taught in most leadership courses, I have found it to repeatedly be the most misunderstood, misinterpreted, and misused management tool. 

Here's a perfect example that I witnessed recently while working with a West Coast based retail company:  We had just completed an Employee Engagement Survey to gauge the temperature of how employees felt about their jobs, the company, their bosses, etc.  This was not about employee satisfaction as I truly believe satisfaction is much like beauty - it is all in the eyes of the beholder.  Yet, when done properly, measuring engagement provides a good amount of useful information. 

In this survey we learned that there was a great variance in how each employee understood the company's vision and goals and how it applied to them from a participation standpoint.  And, the variance was not small; the margins were great.  Responses went from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree" with very few falling in the middle.  As we delved further into the responses we discovered that the employees who strongly agreed about their job's impact on the company's vision and goals were far more engaged.  The employees who strongly disagreed, conversely, were more disengaged and noted complaints about other areas of their job.  So, the question posed:  Who is responsible for this wide variance? 

The responsibility falls totally on the individual bosses.  Quite simply it came down to each individual leader's ability, or lack thereof, to articulate on an ongoing basis, the company's vision and the importance of each individual's contribution in achieving that vision.  These bosses believed that the essence of motivation came from the feeling of contributing - of the employee's ownership.  Interestingly enough, when they learned this in our Engaged Leader Essentials process, some bosses got it, took it to heart and used it while others did not.  That begs the question - why some and not all? 

It took more research to find out the answers.  We went back to the behaviors and attributes of the bosses and found a common thread.  The bosses who "got it" and were rewarded by an engaged team, were able to focus on both the present and the future - maintaining a consistent balance.  What is true in many industries - and particularly in retailing - is that the focus on what needs to be done is determined by the results of each day.  In other words, today determines what I do tomorrow.  Therefore, any focus on a year from now - even two or three days from now - is clouded by what needs to be accomplished today. 

We found that engaged leaders were not only able to solve today's problems, but were able to wisely direct their teams by continually communicating and referring forward to how each particular issue related to what they wanted to accomplish in the future.  Conversely, the bosses with disengaged teams not only focused on today's results, but also failed to draw the connection of those results to the future.  These bosses were also uncomfortable with the concept of employee's motivation coming from ownership.  Instead, their beliefs and motivators caused them to believe that the less said the better; just tell employees what they need to know.  The "empathetic" attribute of these bosses was low, as was their "self direction" score.  Behaviorally they focused on details rather than the big picture.  Yet they all believed they communicated effectively with their teams.  Their common expressions, repeated over and over, was, "But, I talk to them all the time."  Ah.  Talk.  But, not fully communicate. 

What to do

It may be the reality of today's world that there is a tendency to focus on today's issues and worry about tomorrow, tomorrow.  But, losing sight of tomorrow and failing to fully communicate the benefits of the future focus to employees is one sure way to lose even the most engaged workers.  To the chagrin of many bosses, they will need to repeat this message over and over.  To help ensure that you don't fall into this trap, make sure that your communication always answers these five fundamental questions for every employee:

Now be sure to tie this all to the bigger picture - what it means for the future.  Remember, that you as the boss have a pretty clear picture with all the details of why each day's activities are important and play an integral role in creating tomorrow's future.  Don't assume your employees do.  Transferring your knowledge as a boss is the essence of your communication with your team.  Make sure that you convey not only what needs to be done today, but how it plays a role in the bigger picture.  This will enhance your employees understanding and will become a motivator far greater than merely pursuing the task at hand.

While The Kabachnick Group was on the leading edge of recognizing the value of companies engaging their employees, today we are not alone.  Many companies are now finding out it pays big dividends to have engaged employees.  Even nationally known business guru Jack Welch touts this important trend.  Welch says, "No company, small or large, can win over the long run without energized employees who believe in the firm's mission and understand how to achieve it."  We agree!  Here are some great examples from just a few companies that have seen a significant return on investment by ensuring that they have engaged employees: 

• Financial Times reported that employee survey research company ISR found an average 10 percent increase in operating income over 12 months with companies that had a "highly engaged" workforce as compared with a decline of 33 percent in companies with low engagement scores.
• Construction equipment manufacturer Caterpillar claims impressive results from its employee engagement and commitment initiatives, including $8.8 million annual savings from decreased attrition, absenteeism and overtime at their European Plant.  The company experienced a 70 percent increase in output in less than four months at their Asia Pacific plant.
• At beverage giant Molson Coors, employees who were engaged were five times less likely than disengaged employees to have a safety incident.  They were also seven times less likely to have a lost-time safety incident.  As a result, the average cost of a safety incident for engaged employees was $60, compared with an average cost of $392 for disengaged employees - an impressive savings. 
• Retailer Dollar Tree was able to reduce turnover by 35 percent over a six month period.  Pilot stores participating in an employee engagement initiative averaged a three percent increase in sales over the same six month period. 

One of the key issues impacting the favorable results in these companies is that the bosses are having meaningful conversations with individual employees, eye-to-eye and toe-to-toe, about daily results and long and short-term goals.  Essentially, these bosses are constantly communicating with their employees and making sure that their conversations answer the five critical questions for which employees need to know (refer to the above article:  We Talk - But Do We Communicate?).  So, make sure that you don't just "talk" to your employee; that you communicate.  Take a conscious and consistent interest in the individuals who work with you and you will find that they will take a genuine interest in you and the work you need done.

Problem:  I am a senior vice president in a company with 700 plus employees and I cannot understand how the company tolerates - and even sometimes excuses - inappropriate behavior.  Behaviors such as shouting, angry outbursts, objects thrown across the room and use of inappropriate words like "idiot" and "stupid," and phrases like, "Were you on the moon when we discussed this?"  "Are you dyslexic?"  "Have you just arrived from..." 

I have brought this issue up to executive management and they say these kinds of things shouldn't happen, but nothing is done.  This is behavior that comes from senior level management yet it is observed and talked about by lower level managers.  It occurs in closed meetings, in one-on-one conversations, and in small team meetings.  Yet whenever the "big bosses" are around these same people "kiss up" and act like angels.  I lose many hours of productive work because this behavior affects me emotionally.  I also spend many hours explaining this behavior to my direct reports who have been victims in these scenarios and don't know how to deal with it.  Can you tell me what I should do?  And, please don't tell me to leave because I love what I do and care about the company, but this is really bothering me. 

Terri's Answer: 

Obviously you do care about the company; otherwise you wouldn't be asking me to help you solve this problem.  To begin with, here are some important aspects that, regardless of one's position, but especially at the senior level, should be expected to set leadership examples: 

Your issue is a national issue. Take a look at this factoid recently seen in USAToday:

Interestingly, I recently experienced two situations myself similar to your question.  One  involved a very competent senior manager who had an outburst of anger in which he told the group gathered for a meeting that they were "incompetent," and didn't get it and that one solution might be to "just shoot everyone."  This outburst may have been overlooked ten years ago and handled with a slap on the wrist.  Not in today's world.  Instead, this manger was immediately removed from the premises, sent home and later fired.  Was it a capabilities loss to the company?  Absolutely!  But, what could have been the greater loss? 

The second situation dealt with two top level sales people, both whom produced the highest level of sales in a large department.  A senior manager witnessed the two arguing over a customer as to who was going to get the commission from the sale.  Foul language was used; even objects were thrown; all witnessed by both the customer and other associates.  When the attention was brought to management, the senior manager argued that these two salespeople were his very top producers and somehow he had to therefore fix the problem without letting them go; he couldn't afford to let them go.  After looking into the situation I found that this was not unusual behavior from either of the salespeople; unpleasant disputes happened regularly.  The rest of the sales team was intimidated by the two and afraid to intervene or tell management.  Imagine the negative impact on everyone.  Here was my solution.  I felt that the behavior of these two individuals violated every principle the company taught about respect for both internal and external customers.  It violated basic rules of respect for others.  Management agreed and the two were fired. 

Lesson:  Regardless of how important an individual seems to be to the company, no one has the right to be so bold as to think they are irreplaceable; not even the CEO.  No rude, disrespectful, or emotionally damaging behavior can ever be tolerated within a company that expects all of its employees to treat their customers and each other with respect.  One affects the other. 

In both of the examples that I was involved in, the guilty apologized, saying they didn't mean it, etc.  Sorry.  Too late!  As an adult we are each responsible for controlling and managing our behavior.  When we act like a three year-old - who, by the way, is punished for tantrums - then we can expect to be treated like a three year-old and be held accountable.  No excuses! 

Even though we had some intense discussions, the leadership of both of these companies agreed that they must do what's right to demonstrate their commitment to showing individual respect.  An interesting side effect is that in the weeks after the two argumentative top salespeople were dismissed, the entire department's sales rose significantly.  Everyone worked together as a team; customers were approached and serviced with a team effort and the senior manager learned an important lesson for the future:  Uphold these standards and you will have an engaged team of people because you will have shown them you care about them and their well being. 

Back to you

With my personal examples as a guide, here are some things that relate to your specific question.  I'm wondering exactly how you approached senior management with this issue.  Was it a casual conversation that started with, "By the way..."?  Was it a soft, "I thought you'd like to know..."?  If so, that will not work. 

It's important to document the exact behavior - the words used, the resulting effects of the people involved - and then request a formal meeting with several executives, including the senior HR executive.  I recommend that you not accuse, but that you simply state the facts of what occurred and ask for help in dealing with the situation.  The reason I recommend pulling together several executives, including HR, is that many times unacceptable behavior on a senior level of management is tolerated because of extenuating factors.  For example, one executive may not have the personal clout or ability to do something whereas a group may be more effective. 

If you are reading this and you are yourself a leader, executive or manager, know that this problem occurs more often than you may be aware of.  A good way to prevent these kinds of behavior problems to begin with is to take preventative measures by holding a seminar or workshop on conflict management, communication and behavior preferences.  This provides an ideal environment in which to hold discussion about what is and is not tolerated in your company.  Then hold mangers at all levels accountable.  If people have anger management issues, provide them with counseling.  If that doesn't help, hold them accountable and remove them. 

I realize that emotions fill the workplace every day.  However, when we acknowledge this and invest the time to provide education on appropriate ways of dealing with these issues, strongly pointing out the consequences, you will be amazed at the positive results you will see.

Cheryl Bridges, Director of the Center for Retailing Studies at Texas A&M University; Matt Rubel, CEO & President of Collective Brands, Inc. and Payless ShoeSource; and Terri Kabachnick, CEO & Founder of The Kabachnick Group.

As sponsor companies gathered on the Texas A&M University campus for a mini-Retailing Summit at the Center for Retailing Studies, it was Human Resources expert Terri Kabachnick that provided a "motivating and entertaining presentation," focused on hiring the best suited people. 

A write-up in the Center's Retailing News says of Terri's presentation:  "Her practical strategies for hiring success were shared with the fifty executive participants of the Center's second annual Sponsor Forum."

During afternoon breakout sessions at the forum the following issues were identified as "greatest concerns" in the current and future retail landscape: 

• Talent - Development, engagement, competencies, and leadership succession
• Changing Demographics, multi-cultural generations, and growth of the Hispanic population
• Globalization and global competition
• The "Green" movement
• Customer loyalty and expectations
• Differentiation

Terri will return to A&M to be one of the featured speakers at the university's upcoming Retailing Summit to be held October 2 and 3 in Dallas, Texas, when she will address employee branding and engagement issues.