Return on Individuals - the biggest benefit of engaged employees?

I heard a phrase I really like earlier this week: "ROI - Return on Individual".

I've obviously heard it used in the context "return on investment", but not in this context.  It seems so obvious that I feel I should have been aware of it before.  For me it's a powerful expression of the benefit of employee engagement.  Ultimately isn't having engaged employees about growing their contribution to the business OR increasing the return on individuals?

I also came across some powerful statistics to illustrate the point.  In a Directive Communication International study undertaken in 2007 involving the marketing, human resource and finance departments of 72 similar organisations, evidence suggested that an engaged workforce is greater than the sum of its parts.  The study reported that "If there are 100 employees in an organisation with a poor corporate culture, they will produce the work of 63.  In an average culture they will do the work of 100 and in an enriched culture they produce the work of up to 159 employees."

The report described the enriched culture as being "Leadership enriched", meaning that people felt emotional gratification and fulfilment at work.  They also felt they were an important part of the organisation and that their job equipped them with the opportunity to grow as an individual.  These descriptors bear a very close resemblence to those resulting in engagement.

So the difference in ROI from the worst to the best performing was equivalent to 96 people.  Some return on individuals!

LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/timhadfield
Twitter: @accordengage
Telephone: 0044 07906650019 

TGI Fridays - Food to make you smile, service which made me frown

I've been a fan of TGI Fridays for more than 20 years.  During that time I've been a regular customer and because I'm a dad, every visit is a family occassion so through me they have a relationship with my wife and children.

What we've always enjoyed is a) great food and b) a relaxing and fun experience.  It's clear that everything about the experience has been intentionally designed, from the decor of the restaurant to the training of the folks who are the face of the brand.  It has obviously worked for me (and my family) in the past because we've gone back repeatedly.

But it didn't work during our latest visit, which on this occasion was to the restaurant in Sutton Coldfield.  The food was again good but the experience fell sadly short.  There were three key issues:

• Every member of staff we interacted was going through the motions.  They seemed to be there in body but had left their sense of humour and warmth at home.  Each point of contact, from buying a drink at the bar beforehand to paying our bill, was transactional with no added value.  This in turn meant that the little problems we experienced became magnified;
• I wanted to add my drinks order at the bar to my bill.  In order to do this he asked for my card.  I assumed he wanted to take a card impression just in case I should disappear without paying.  However, he wanted to keep it until I paid the bill at the end of the evening.  He didn't explain this properly and neither did he ask for your permission, leaving me feeling temporarily out of control and questionning whether it was in my best interests.
• My son, 15 years old and very fashion conscious, was wearing a snap-back cap and was asked to remove it as it's apparently the restaurant policy is for customers not to wear hats.  He was put out.  Whether it's right to have the policy is a different question - my personal view is that it's strange to 'ban' a fasion accessory.  However, I was disappointed more about the absence of an explanation for the policy (if you're asking people to change what they've chosen to wear during a night out is it unreasonable to explain why) and about their inconsistent application of it.  At one point my son put his cap back on because a man on a nearby table had been allowed to enter and sit down without being asked to remove his.  Our waitress immediately asked my son to rmove his cap again, at which I pointed out the inconsistency.  Her response was to ask my son again to remove his cap and then ask the manager to ask the other man to remove his.  All a bit heavy handed!
• When ordering a steak for his meal, my son asked for an accompanying barbecue sauce.  He was told that it wasn't an option which his order.  Subsequently when the meals came my daughter asked for some barbecue sauce with her fries and was given some immediately.  I have no idea why the waitress couldn't make the decision to change whatever sauce was allowed with the steak, to satisfy her customer.

 The cumulative impact of these things, coming as they did spread throughout the evening, prevented us from having fun.  There wasn't much laughing or smiling happening at our table!

It's also a real example of how quickly customer loyalty can be lost.  Before the meal had ended my son, supported by his sister, had decided that he didn't want to eat there again.  We also visit one of TGI Fridays competitors and I suspect they might get more business from us, at the expense of TGI's. in future.

LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/timhadfield
Twitter: @accordengage
Telephone: 0044 07906650019

The 'Palin Doctrine' - How to become a professional appreciator

I heard an interview with Michael Palin on the radio last week.  He was promoting his new BBC TV programme ‘Brazil’, unsurprisingly about his experiences whilst travelling in that country.  I love watching his programmes.  I’ve watched many of the ones he’s made in the past and always found the different scenes and customs in different places he’s visited fascinating.  At least that’s what I thought before I heard the interview on the radio. 

During it he referred to himself as a “Professional Appreciator”.  He explained that he’s not someone who does much activity himself but that he does notice and appreciate the things others do.  He talked about it in a self-deprecating way but for me it’s not at all insignificant, it’s admirable.  I’d love to be a professional appreciator - someone who consciously notices even the smallest things and realises and values their worth.  Actually I think that’s what I really enjoy about his programmes – and others which follow a similar approach.  Billy Connolly’s ‘world tour’ series for example.  It’s actually the excitement and enthusiasm they seem to have for everything that I enjoy.  As I said, I think it’s an admirable and attractive quality.

It’s also quite rare in my experience.  And people who have it can sometimes be misinterpreted as shallow and focused on the unimportant, the pointless, the trivial.  How would you react if one of your colleagues wanted to share their excitement about a beautiful flower they’d seen or an unusual cloud formation? 

In business in particular what’s considered important, what gets noticed most tends to be the big stuff, not the smaller actions or behaviours.  And managers are recognised and rewarded for the higher level objectives they achieve, usually in a system that encourages a focus on strategic objectives and less on the small stuff.

We know though that performance is better when people are engaged and committed to the organisation.  And we also know that one of the key drivers of engagement is the degree to which people feel recognised.  The first stage in the process of recognition is noticing the little things people do that are valuable and warrant appreciation.  It’s then the expression of appreciation for those things that result in people feeling recognised.

As is often the case it’s counter-intuitive.  What we should be doing to engage people is to notice the small things more, to be excited and enthusiastic about them and to express appreciation.  Isn’t it common sense that if lots and lots of small things are done well the bigger things will automatically fall into place?

I was reading that Michael Palin’s travel programmes are responsible for a phenomenon termed the “Palin effect” – areas of the world he has visited and produced programmes about then become popular tourist attractions.  Wouldn’t it be great if the “Palin doctrine” resulted in higher engagement because being a professional appreciator became an accepted core element of every manager’s role? 

LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/timhadfield
Twitter: @accordengage
Telephone: 0044 07906650019

My good news from Santander

My business bank account is with Santander.  I'm not sure why to be honest other than it seemed like a good idea at the time.

Service has been average - not bad but certainly not good.  I once visited a local branch to request a transaction and whilst they did so, they told me four times that business customers can't transact at a branch counter and so they were only doing it on this one occassion as a gesture of goodwill.  Once would have been enough!

A couple of days ago I received a letter from Santander informing me that they "are delighted to announce that in addition to your existing banking services, we are starting to introduce counter access for our Business Banking customers."  It went on to confirm that I will be able to complete transactions at "your local Santander Branch.  At this time, the branch detailed ...is the only one that will be able to process your business banking transactions.  However, we are looking to extend this in the future and we will obviously let you know when this happens."

I don't know what Santander believe 'local' means but the branch they've suggested I use doesn't feel very local to me.  In fact a search on the Santander website confirms that 12 branches and a further 6 Agency branches are closer to where I live than the branch concerned!

Is this really worth promoting as good news?  Do they expect me to be delighted that I can now drive 17 miles to transact over the counter?  Have they considered how this might be received by customers, or is their focus so internally driven that they can't see it?  I wonder....

LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/timhadfield
Twitter: @accordengage
Telephone: 0044 07906650019

Learnings from the Lance Armstrong and Jimmy Saville scandals.

On the face of it the media stories about Lance Armstrong and Jimmy Saville are not related. They occurred on different sides of the Atlantic Ocean, involve people in completely different spheres of life and the actions of the two men being reported in the media are quite different. Incidentally, and for the avoidance of doubt, I am neither supporting or accusing either of the two men. I am not knowledgeable enough about the specifics to be able to do so. My observations are purely about the circumstances surrounding the events now being reported.

But there are a number of similarities in the stories:

• The actions of the two men, as being reported, appear to have been driven by an imbalance between self-interest and what's in the interest of others and / the wider community in which they operated
• Both men were considered to be extremely powerful in their community
• The wrong-doings that are being reported stayed out of the public domain for years
• And the people (according to the media) who tried to draw attention to what they considered to be wrong failed. The evidence suggests that the degree of disbelief and / or challenge they encountered was so strong that they didn't feel able to continue with their accusation

I believe that combination of circumstances means that there are lessons to be learned for organisations.

Namely that where the culture of an organisation doesn't prevent self-interest and "what's best for me", and where a few individuals become very powerful, the likelihood of the culture suppressing challenge, let alone whistleblowing reduces substantially.

It also illustrates the value of really understanding the underlying culture at work in any organisation. What are its strengths and weaknesses and what are the risks that emerge as a result?

I wonder whether these stories would have emerged years ago if these inherent risks had been understood and managed?

LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/timhadfield
Twitter: @accordengage
Telephone: 0044 07906650019

Special delivery...

Continuing the photos theme from my last blog, here's another one sent to me by a friend.  I think it also links nicely with my previous thoughts about outputs and outcomes.

After ordering something over the internet a few days earlier, my friend returned home from work to find this card had been pushed through the letterbox.  A search then revealed that the parcel had indeed been pushed into the hedge in her front garden. 

As far as the delivery person was concerned they had achieved another output and whilst the outcome for her was that she'd received the parcel, how she'd received it left her shaking her head in disbelief.  Shoving a parcel into the hedge didn't leave her with a good impression.

The root cause of this is twofold.  Firstly, the focus on output rather than outcome.  Secondly, the fact that the delivery element of the transaction is outsourced.  The retailer doesn't know how the delivery company is impacting the customer experience, and the delivery company doesn't care because they get paid the same amount irrespective of it.

LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/timhadfield
Twitter: @accordengage
Telephone: 0044 07906650019

Barclays advert - did they really mean that?

A friend sent me this Barlays advert yesterday.  I suspect the word 'stop' in the final sentence of the first paragraph is a mistake!  Surely it should be 'spot'. 

Then again, perhaps not!

LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/timhadfield
Twitter: @accordengage
Telephone: 0044 07906650019

Outputs or outcomes? And what the answer says about your organisation.

I heard a story about a restaurant recently.  The owners worked hard to develop a reputation and the food, the atmosphere and the overall experience of the place made it something special.  It's growing reputation meant that it got busier week by week, so much so that the number of meals served on a typical Friday night increased to an average of 94 from 60 just a couple of months previously.

The owners congratulated themselves on being able to scale up and deliver this increase without hiring a new chef and more waiters / waitresses.  And on the face of it that seemed to be the right thing to do.  After all, wasn't getting the food out th emost important thing?  Everything appeared rosy - and yet they missed the fact that customers felt the quality of their experience deteriorated.  Probably at a rate proportionate to the increased in meals served.  Unfortunately some of them soon decided "it's not as good as it used to be" and ate at other restaurants instead.

This is a good example of an organisation focusing on outputs (meals served) rather than customer outcomes (overall quality of the eating out experience).  Individual customers weren't interested in the total number of meals served, just the quality of their meal and their overall experience of their evening out.  That was their desired outcome. 

When the restaurant first opened the owners just knew that the experience customers had was what would make the business a success and their focus on the outcome was what caused it to gain its reputation and grow.

Strange then that they should take their eye off outcomes and focus instead on the output.  But it's often what happens when businesses, or more specifically the people who work in businesses, are under pressure to deliver more or deliver the same with less.  They regress to an outputs (internal) perspective and lose their outcomes (external) focus.  Businesses who focus on outputs rather than outcomes are always less customer focused and deliver a poorer customer experience.

It's a very, very common mistake.  Call Centres focus on calls answered rather than the quality of how customer queries have been answered and problems resolved.   Mortgage Lenders report on the value of completions instead of customers who have been helped to move or improve.  Surgeons track finished consultant episodes, retailers measure units sold, hotels focus on rooms occupied.  The list goes on.

There's nothing wrong with measuring outputs of course but not at the expense of outcomes.  Great businesses place outcomes first and their output measures, whilst useful measures of internal efficiency, are subordinate.  What takes precedence in your business - outputs or outcomes?

LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/timhadfield
Twitter: @accordengage
Telephone: 0044 07906650019