Arunis Chesonis is a CEO who gets the power of communication as a necessary ingredient for success. If only other CEOs followed his recipe.
My radar is always up for examples of CEOs who understand that communication is necessary for business success. It’s difficult finding business leaders who do more than pay lip service to the idea of frequent, honest communication with stakeholders – especially employees.
Arunis Chesonis is a rare find. He is CEO of PAETEC, one of the few startups that survived the great telecom boom of the late 1990s. I first read about him in Fast Company magazine in February 2004. The article caught my eye because Chesonis has created a company culture where information flows freely, knowledge passes from one person to another and the dignity of people comes first. It’s a philosophy that works, too – last year’s article cited a 250 percent growth rate in the previous three years and it’s still growing at a rate of 120 percent.
Chesonis impressed me so much that I suggested him as a keynote speaker for the annual Corporate Communicators Conference presented by Ragan Communications in Las Vegas last week. The conference organizers like to find a CEO who can charge up the corporate-communication professionals in attendance – it can be demoralizing to work for some companies that believe the less communication the better.
My friend and fellow communication consultant Charles Pizzo wrote a blog from the conference and gushed about Chesonis’s address. Believe me when I say it takes a lot for Charles to gush about anything, so I knew the CEO’s remarks were powerful.
“This is a CEO who gets it,” Charles wrote, “who lives, breathes and exudes communication. “Speaking from the heart with no script, he is a communicator’s dream.”
That observation alone tells you how easy it is for a CEO to score points with customers, employees, or whomever, just by being real. So many business leaders are attached at the hip to a script filled with jargon and clichés, it’s no wonder nobody believes a word they say.
Charles summarized Chesonis’s remarks, which focused on his philosophy as a leader. “You cannot over-appreciate your employees. Give employees ownership. Show fairness in wages, perks and parking. Keep balance: work is not the most important thing in people’s lives. Flexibility counts: people have family and friends, birthdays and Little League. The culture is the company: create a sense of family. Support the community: encourage employees to develop pride while chasing their passions.”
What does this have to do with communication? Everything. So many business leaders fail to understand that actions – their individual actions, the company’s actions – communicate strong messages to people all the time. I have a friend who is close to burning out personally and professionally in his job for one of Richmond’s top employers. His boss doesn’t understand how her constant demands and unreasonable expectations communicate that he is a commodity to be used and tossed aside.
“Arunis makes so much sense, and is so refreshing, that we should bottle his essence and pour it over salads in corporate boardrooms all across the land,” Charles wrote. “His message is absolutely palatable.”
And yet, it’s on the menus of so few companies these days.
The biggest challenge I find for managers responsible for the employer brand strategy is they don’t understand the science of branding and lack knowledge in branding principle and practices which have been informed by decades of research into how brands grow. I’m going to go over that here, and then get to what you can do to grow your company brand.
Common employer branding mistakes
Some of the most common mistakes I see made by companies include:
- Creating recruitment advertising that doesn’t build or refresh relevant memory structures or associations about what it is like to work for the company
- Viewing employer branding as merely a recruitment strategy or short-term recruitment advertising campaign
- Failing to conduct research with the internal and external audience to determine what makes their employer brand distinctive
- Paying premiums for low-reach media that is sold by money-hungry vendors as “reaching a niche audience”
- Relying on a ranking in “best places to work” surveys as the sole metric for the employer brand strategy
How strong is your corporate brand? Important question. How can you do better than guess at the answer? Well, you could spend six or seven figures on some quant research on reputation (which will do little more than confirm your gut about what people think of you), you can invest in a brand valuation (which will give you a nice round number that isn’t reliable and won’t tell you much about how well your business is performing) or you can put a PR resource on retainer to track the interweb for mentions, sentiment and buzz. Or there is Net Promoter Score, and no doubt myriad other ways to extract your dollars and distract you from what matters. Even after all this expenditure of time and money, I don’t believe you’ll be any better informed than you are now.
But wait, there’s hope. Wander over to HR and ask them to give you the last three years of your company’s employee engagement data (and if they don’t have employee engagement data tell them to get busy and start collecting it).
My hypothesis – and I am about to launch a research initiative to test it – is that organizations with low employee engagement scores have weak brands and those with high employee engagement scores have strong brands. I have observed this pattern in every organization I have worked with that has had the data available. Naturally I cannot name names as we are talking about confidential data but there are winners and losers.
Forced ranking – the process of assessing, identifying and potentially eliminating a percentage of the lowest performing employees each year – is on the rise. Promoted by many – most notably GE’s Jack Welch as a way to increase organizational performance over time, the practice has come under scrutiny recently. Two studies cast doubt on the long term benefits of the practice.
In the first study of 200 seasoned HR professionals, released last summer1, researchers gathered “…some startling findings around the perceived negative repercussions from forced ranking systems, such as reduced productivity, inequity and skepticism, negative effect on retention, and a detrimental impact to the bottom-line.”
The second study, done by researchers at Drake University2 used a computer model to simulate the performance improvement gained over a 30 year horizon by organizations using forced ranking systems. While they found an initial “bump” of a respectable 16% in the first two years, this quickly tailed off to a negligible 1% by the 10th year.
In the short-term forced ranking appears to create a high performance culture; focusing on staffing with the best of the best. However, this occurs at the cost of reducing other behaviors that contribute to innovation and risk taking; communication and collaboration. “Hard fun” needs to be located in the content of the work, not the politics of survival to benefit both the individual and the organization.
What do you think? Post your thoughts in Q&A.
1 to read the press release about the study go to http://www.novations.com/novations/go/rainbow/4045/en/DesktopDefault.aspx You can also request a copy of the complete study there.
2 to read a brief article about the study go to
In this paper, the author refers to current trends and essentials that organizations must consider to actively engage their workforce. Consistent communication, employee involvement, building trust and supporting real-time recognition are key elements to successfully engagement. Positive outcomes of engagement include increased productivity, loyalty and better alignment to company’s goals. A list of recommendations and a case study from Sapient distills best practices from within the organization.
Jack Welch, ex-CEO of General Electric once famously said – “without everybody embracing what we want to do, we haven’t got a prayer” summing up the importance of engaging employees to align to the organization’s goals. Organizations today face innumerable challenges including overcoming economic and business changes and managing varied workforce demands. That apart engaging employees is more complex with an explosion in social media tools and usage, increasing information overload, waning attention spans and a war for talent.
Engagement Takes Center stage
Employee engagement has taken center stage in the recent past with a host of consulting firms claiming to have cracked the code with well researched concepts and artifacts. For example, Hewitt sums up their understanding with the Stay-Say-Strive model and defines engagement as the ‘state of emotional and intellectual involvement in a group or organization – the extent to which an organization has captured the hearts and minds of its people’. Organizations also commit a lot of time and resources to participating in best places to work studies in order to reflect high levels of engagement that improve their chances of attracting the best people.
What does Engagement Mean?
The Gallup organization describes employee engagement as the ‘the involvement with and enthusiasm for work’. According to Development Dimensions International, ‘engagement is the extent to which people enjoy and believe in what they do, and feel valued for doing it.’ Watson Wyatt explains it as ‘the combination of commitment and line of sight’. The Corporate Leadership Council defines engagement as ‘the extent to which employees commit to something or someone in their organization and how hard they work and how long they stay as a result of that commitment’. Four focal points of commitment – day to day, team, manager and organization emerge from two broad types of commitment – rational and emotional. The outcomes of engagement are discretionary effort and an intention to stay.
While consultants and academicians spar on a worthy definition, the implications for communicators and organizations are barely understood. Gallup distinguished employees based on their engagement levels ranging from ‘engaged’ to ‘actively disengaged’. Some research firms coin creative ways to represent the profile of engaged employees based on their contribution and satisfaction – core contributors, lost believers, aligned skeptics, loose cannons, silent listeners, hamsters, crash and burners. It is important to revisit the reasons for declining engagement scores and relook at drivers that can change the way organizations keep employees connected.
Why Should Organizations Bother?
Global research reports such as the Edelman Trust Barometer highlight falling engagement levels within organization which face newer challenges such as globalization of business, new age technology, an increasingly diverse workforce and greater market pressures. There is a power shift in information sharing and credibility. According to the Trust Barometer, opinion leaders also consider rank-and-file employees more credible spokespeople than corporate CEOs (42% versus 28% in the US). Trust in “regular employees” and “colleagues” is growing, and is already significantly higher than information conveyed by a CEO. This may mean that the way internal communication is perceived may dictate how committed employees are within an organization.
To stay ahead, organizations need to tap their employees’ talents and market trends such as changes in the social media landscape. Organizational programs and policies that address employees’ needs and concerns and demonstrate caring and supportive environment are likely to motivate employees to reciprocate with higher levels of engagement. Development Dimensions International believes that organizations understand that people are a key asset and they have an overwhelming impact on the company’s growth. The right work environment usually translates into improved motivation and enhanced or discretionary effort; which in turn leads to business success. There are however ways to build engagement and Hewitt’s survey on ‘Cost Reduction and Engagement’ mentions that executives need to focus on planning, communicating better, measuring engagement impact and retaining talent. Those companies that communicate proactively are much surer of measuring engagement and better equipped to handle any downturns.
Five Strategies to Engage Your People
1. Involve Employees in Decision Making
The Egage Group in the UK recently discovered through their study that ‘including’ rather than ‘talking at’ people was the most effective way of engaging employees to improve business performance. The findings confirm a direct relationship between an organization’s financial performance and employees’ commitment to contribute effort. The essence of the study is that people are more committed when they are involved in change.
Similarly, a study by Gallup in 2009 among 1,003 U.S. employees arrived at the conclusion that if supervisors focus on their peoples’ strengths and actively engages rather than overlooks, the greater the chances of employees rallying for the organization’s cause. ‘What’s Working’ – Mercer study on worker insights highlights that employee engagement is no more about just the employee’s intent to leave. The employee’s commitment to the organization and motivation to contribute to the organization’s success plays a significant role. Among the key drivers are trust in senior management, organizational perception for customer service and fair pay. Not surprisingly, among the least valued factors in the continuum were benefits, compensation and performance management.
2. Effective Communication Key to Success
Watson Wyatt’s ‘Global Work Attitudes Report’ indicates that if engagement is high, so is financial performance. It highlights that the main drivers of employee engagement are similar around the world: effective communication, a clear customer focus and confidence in the strategic direction and leadership of the organization. It is therefore recommended that senior leaders proactively communicate, explain their thinking behind key decisions and organizational changes. It is also expected that managers and leaders personalize communication to improve trust and credibility. By regularly seeking feedback and employee inputs in the decision making process helps engage them better. Frequent recognition is known to be a relevant engagement lubricant and Towers Perrin underscores the influence of managers in inclusive communication and building trust through the power of recognitions.
3. Managers as Communication Ambassadors
The manager’s role in positively impacting engagement is widely accepted. A study by the Society of Human Resources Management found that managers or the immediate supervisors have a mission to build and sustain a workplace environment that fosters engagement and also attracts potential employees. Employees’ emotional commitment to the job, organization, team and manager has been found to determine stronger performance. Also managerial style has a significant impact on trust, respect and leadership and is one of the factors that influence engagement. A study by Development Dimensions International highlights that among the top key components of engagement are communication and accountability. This emphasizes the highlighting the managers’ responsibility in engaging employees. Having a competent manager community and a comprehensive communication strategy are vital to an organization’s engagement initiatives.
A well crafted reward and recognition program that is fair, clear, outcome driven and real-time supports a manager in improving commitment and productivity. That said, the manager is also expected to be attentive (listen intently), receptive (be open to suggestions and acknowledge value of what is heard) and responsive (demonstrate interest to take action). It is know that people show increased levels of respect and trust for managers who regularly ‘uplift’ their employees with informal and formal confidence building measures.
4. Demonstrate your commitment to corporate social responsibility
A research by Kenexa suggests that an organization’s active participation in corporate social responsibility efforts has a significant influence on employees’ engagement levels and how they perceive senior management. The research bases itself on the premise that those companies that win the hearts and minds of their top talent will be able to deliver value over both the short and long terms’. Bhattacharya, C. B., Sen, Sankar & Korschun (2008) in their study emphasized that employees like to work for social responsible companies because it gives them the opportunity for personal growth. CEOs who were polled ranked ‘CSR’ 2nd in importance only to ‘reputation and brand’. Those who identify strongly with the company, view its success as their own. Employees who noted their organization’s commitment to social responsible behavior were motivated to work harder and be more productive. The benefits for the organization included high levels of employee commitment and dedication to excellence at work.
5. Embrace social media to engage employees
In their book ‘First, Break All The Rules: What The World’s Greatest Managers Do Differently’ the authors Marcus Buckingham and Curt Coffman articulate how communication is a vital element in energizing a flagging workforce. Overcoming information overload and getting employees to manage their work and by providing necessary tools helps to motivate and engage.
The research proposes a model – Develop-Deploy-Connect taking into account alignment, capability, performance and commitment. According to Aon Consulting, employers are unable to keep pace with the way employees communicate and hence do not know how to engage them. With growing social media interest it no more about what we communicate with employees but how we do so. There are lessons for leadership to absorb newer trends in social networking and mobile telephony to appeal to their younger generation at the workplace. Recommendations to involve and create a culture of sharing and peer to peer communication include instant messaging, podcasts, virtual training, blogs, internal social networks, wikis and social sites.
Deloitte’s 2008 talent report quotes a couple of relevant surveys – a Conference Board study which highlights open and two way communication as one of the top three expectations of employers. Another study from MIT which reinforces the social engagement aspect – ‘people are five times more likely to consult a co-worker for information than a corporate system’. ‘Who you know’ matters more than just ‘what you know’, a shift from our earlier understanding of knowledge and importance within an organization.
These pointers are crucial for organization to remodel the way communication needs to get created, shared and viewed. Social media tools will play a defining role in building trust and transparency, drive engagement and help measure the impact of how employees view their employers. There are very few organizations who take employee feedback and actively drive recommendations from consultants. Look up a case study of Sapient to know of how the organization involves and integrates its people to win loyalty.
Helping employees understand their role in the organization’s growth, channelizing their creative energies and allowing freedom at work can deliver results for organizations who want to win the engagement battle.
The Sapient Way – A Case Study
At Sapient, a global services company founded in 1990, the commitment to help clients transform their businesses for today’s digitally centric world is top priority. The organization believes in aligning its people to the company’s goals and understands the importance of keeping everyone on the same page when it comes to meeting it objectives. From its unique 3 day integration workshop and strategy called Sapient Start to its performance linked assessment program, from its ‘localized’ rewards and recognition initiative to its wide reaching alumni connection – the organization ensures that every person imbibes the Sapient culture. By keeping its internal programs consistent across all levels and all geographies it retains its unique identity and the clients’ experience of Sapient.
Sapient’s culture hinges on Strategic Context, a framework of common purpose, vision and set of values that connect every Sapient person to the company’s future. This aligns its people to a common and shared goal and their efforts are contributing to a bigger cause. The key differentiators of Sapient are its focus on internal communication, involving people in key decision making, extensive leadership-people connection, open and transparent work environment, its corporate social responsibility commitment, sharing ownership with the manager community and its consistent measurement of engagement.
Due to its focus on engagement, it ranks globally amongst the most engaged companies in the BT Mercer ‘Best Companies to Work’ as well as the ‘Great Places to Work’ surveys. Its reputation as a great place to work is also significantly enhanced by being featured amongst NASSCOM’s Top 100 innovators.
Below is a snapshot of a few internal initiatives that drive engagement at Sapient.
Strategic Internal Communication Approach: Effective internal communications drives Sapient people to change behaviors. It shares relevant and compelling communication to get people to move from awareness to understanding and action. Specifically, for change management initiatives that affect a large portion of Sapient people, a toolkit is shared that outlines communication practices at Sapient. A strong partnership between Public Relations, Internal Communications and the leadership ensures that Sapient people receive significant information about big changes, such as acquisitions and leadership transitions real time. Through telephonic debriefs, Town Halls and e-mails Sapient’s leadership effectively cascade the information with the help of managers to everyone in the company within a matter of hours.
Consistent Leadership Connect Town Halls: Every quarter the senior leadership and Office Leads commit time to engage with its people, share company updates, take feedback and answer questions face to face. The management believes it is vital to have everyone on the same page. The Town Hall conversations cover the company strategy, the impact of people practices, the company’s progress against goals, recognitions and office level updates.
People Forums: People from different career levels meet up on a recurring basis to interact, engage, drive initiatives and connection with peers and the organization. The forums such as the manager, director and technology sessions strive to align to the company’s charter and the Leadership Team’s goals. These are also opportunities to groom future leaders by allowing people to take accountability and initiative. Apart from this gathering, the Leadership Team frontends an initiative called the ‘Lessons in Leadership’ which allows people to interact with leaders, get advice on growing leadership skills and connect on a personal level with leaders.
Consistent communication through plasma TVs: Across offices plasma TVs play a roll-up of key company updates in a timely and consistent format. Every week the information is refreshed with a dedicated team monitoring and releasing content on company branded templates. The plasma screens are placed at vantage locations near the reception areas to ensure the information is relayed effectively. Also the slides are pictorial and timed to give people sufficient opportunity to absorb key messages.
The People Portal : The Sapient People Portal, represents a key step in the company’s commitment to keep its people better connected and informed, and provide an intuitive, easy-to-use experience. A major benefit is its ability to communicate important messages from management in a timely and efficient manner. The People Portal is unique in the manner the company involved the entire company in its conception and development. Over 40 teams made up of over 100 Sapient people submitted design entries, which were voted on by the entire company. Many of the designs provided key functional ideas and specifications that have been incorporated into the winning design.
Sapient’s company newsletter, the Sapient Connection: The weekly internal newsletter, emailed to every Sapient person and posted on the landing page of the People Portal, highlights new messages from leadership, as well as corporate news and success stories from offices worldwide. The newsletter received than three times the number of articles submitted and much wider readership than its predecessor. The Sapient Connection is now more accessible with a pdf format that is e-mailed to those who are at client locations and are unable to view the People Portal from a remote site.
People Portal Communities: Sapient believes in frequent and open feedback. It encourages people to leverage the current trend in social networking to help foster a sense of community between people and leadership. The People Portal includes online Sapient Communities, which have become a valuable tool for sharing information and insights in real time and fostering a sense of community across teams, practices, offices worldwide. Leaders can now connect with their people through postings, articles, and discussion threads.
Social Media Usage: Sapient creats CEO ‘You-Tube’ style videos to share company updates and progress against objectives set. The video medium is an ideal communication tool that allows the company to share information in a consistent and timely manner. Feedback on this new format has been extremely positive; people feel the video format helps them connect more easily (than an e-mail bulletin, for example) to leaders’ new ideas. Similarly, leadership blogs written by a pool of leaders share experiences and personal learning from the workplace. The blogs capitalizes on their ‘personality’ within the organization, provides an opportunity for leaders to be heard and allows open interaction. It is measured through the number of direct comments from readers, fruitful conversations and increased engagement. The posts range from the leaders’ business interactions to the team’s charter, from recent industry trends to the company’s people volunteering initiatives. The leadership accesses and manages the blogs in a DIY (do it yourself) model with e-mail communication templates to share updates after they post their entries. The company recently launched a Sapient India Facebook group (http://www.facebook.com/sapientindia) to build on the success of its social media strategy, which already includes Sapient Interactive groups on Facebook and LinkedIn. The Sapient India Facebook group is designed to help the company create brand awareness, showcase its culture and provide a community forum where Sapient people can share important company milestones and engage others in relevant discussion. The page reached 861 fans in a short span of 5 months.
‘Non-Business’ Distribution Lists: The company allows people to operate subscriber led distribution lists which appeal to special interest groups. The leadership monitors and observes posts and responds to comments and feedback which impact the organization. The lists are self-moderated and the moderators proposes guidelines so that only relevant communication is shared. Close to 1/3 of the company use the lists and many claim that it increases their chances of getting good deals as compared to the traditional route of newspaper advertisements. Through peer reviews people are able to get quick feedback on courses, real estate, banking needs among others.
Engagement Measurement: The company conducts a company-wide ‘pulse’ designed to assess the quality of how its people experience Sapient. The Engagement Survey using qualitative and quantitative questions assesses the company’s performance against a set of unchanging key measures. It measures various aspects of Sapient and gives Company, Support Teams, as well as Account, Project and Practice Leadership insight into what we are doing well today and what we need to change and improve. Apart from that Sapient conducts periodic Focus Group sessions designed to gather qualitative and anecdotal information from Sapient people about their thoughts on Sapient’s culture. Culture Champions approach people directly to participate in these in order to ensure a representative mix of domains, career stages, tenures and roles in each office are covered. Regular periodic ‘pulse’ checks are also conducted to get a sense of people and preempt attrition. The focus covers key themes: leadership, recognition and fun, connect to company, nature of work and growth. Using a proven discussion grid the inputs are captured for developing an action plan and shared directly with leaders.
Recognition Program: Sapient not only has a dedicated resource to oversee its recognition program it also makes improvements to the way award recipients are selected and celebrated. It applauds extraordinary effort and success across the organization consistently. All recognition programs are localized to ensure easier connection, faster distribution and smoother processes. The program is linked to the organization’s objectives and recognizes high performance. There are awards ranging from a spot recognition to a company wide honor for business development and living the core values.
Career Framework: Sapient invests in career tools to build readiness among its people for rapid growth and expansion into new markets. With an updated, integrated, holistic and standardized set of tools for talent management that better reflect its current and future business requirements, the company is well positioned to meet the needs of both the business and the inspirational needs its people. Online tools support peoples’ understanding of their competencies, areas of improvement and career levels they can move to.
People Led Office-Level Programs: Celebrations assume different dimensions at the local Sapient office level and are a blend of social, leadership-based and even, family-oriented celebratory gatherings, to recognize the value and impact that our people have on the organization. Sharing successes at the workplace with people’s families make celebrations even more meaningful. Through office-level social meets, leadership-people interactions and family gatherings we place a strong emphasis on recognizing the value and successes that our people bring across the organization in varying degrees. Budgets are allocated via the Office Leads who involve people for the office level programs.
Emphasis on CSR: We believe that corporate social responsibility (CSR) relates to the way organizations integrate social, environmental, and economic concerns into their values, culture, decision making, strategy and operations, thereby establishing better practices within the organization, creating wealth, and improving society. Sapient is interested in CSR as a way to ‘give back’ to the communities that we operate within while improving morale and engagement within our organization. We actively support the programs which fundamentally help improve lives. The programs are unique since it is people led and the organization plays the role of enabler with resources and support. The ‘enactors’ are the employees who choose, design and implement initiatives that impact society.
______________________________________________________________________
References:
1. British Association of Communicators in Business (2008). Engagement: Results of Engage Group Survey. Retrieved: http://cib.uk.com/content/knowledge-bank/1457-engagement-yougov-survey-results.html
2. Vance, Robert J., Ph.D. (2006). Employee Engagement and Commitment. Retrieved: http://www.shrm.org/about/foundation/research/Documents/1006EmployeeEngagementOnlineReport.pdf
3. Baker, Brian (2009). Engagement 2.0 Beyond the Firewall. Aon Consulting
4. Wellins, Richard S., Bernthal, Paul & Phelps, Mark (2004). Employee Engagement: the key to realizing competitive advantage, Development Dimensions International, Inc.,
Retrieved: http://www.ddiworld.com/pdf/ddi_employeeengagement_mg.pdf
5. Mercer (2008). What’s Working Study. Retrieved: http://www.mercer.com/whatsworking
6. Watson Wyatt (2008). Increasing Employee Engagement: Strategies for Enhancing Business and Individual Performance. Work Asia Survey
Retrieved: http://www.watsonwyatt.com/asia-pacific/research/docs/WorkAsia_SurveyReport_2007-2008.pdf
7. Bhattacharya, C. B., Sen, Sankar & Korschun, Daniel (2008). Using Corporate Social Responsibility to win the War of Talent, MIT Sloan Management Review. Winter 2008. Vol 49 No: 2.
8. Kenexa (2007). Corporate Social Responsibility Efforts Are Recognised By Employees
Retrieved: http://www.kenexa.com/getattachment/76533599-b86f-4391-8d50-3b8e35286d3f/Corporate-Social-Responsibility-Efforts-Are-Recogn.aspx
9. Buckingham, Marcus., & Coffman, Curt. (1999). First, Break All The Rules : What The World’s Greatest Managers Do Differently.
10. Deloitte (2008). It’s 2008: Do You Know Where Your Talent Is?. A Deloitte Research Study
11. Lockwood, Nancy R. (2007). Leveraging Employee Engagement for Competitive Advantage: HR’s Strategic Role. SHRM Research 2007 SHRM® Research Quarterly
12. Driving Performance and Retention Through Employee Engagement. Corporate Leadership Council 2004 Employee Engagement Survey.
13. Hewitt (2009). Cost Reduction and Engagement Survey. Retrieved: http://www.hewittassociates.com/MetaBasicCMAssetCache/Assets/Articles/2009/Hewitt_Survey_Highlights_Cost_Reduction_and_Engagement_042009.pdf
14. Towers Perrin (2009). White Paper – ‘Turbo charging’ Employee Engagement: The Power of Recognition from Managers.
Aniisu K Verghese is the India Internal Communication Lead at Sapient Corporation. Aniisu is passionate about engaging fellow communication practitioners through workshops and presentations. Visit Aniisu’s blog at http://www.intraskope.wordpress.com
How we talk to our sweetheart often transfers to the workplace
Maybe it’s because Valentine’s Day is upon us, but lately I’m thinking a lot about communication that has nothing to do with the workplace. I’m thinking about the kind that is ultimately more important than communication at work. Let’s call it communication in love.
We guys usually get pretty low scores from our significant others on our communication skills. Most women’s complaints usually have to do with our unwillingness to talk about our feelings. We opt instead for the universal grunt, which can be interpreted in a variety of ways. We do this so women will think we’re strong and mysterious. Revealing too much about what we think about something – whether it’s our political opinions, our existential questions or our innermost feelings – might ruin the mystery or make us appear weak.
Men give women low scores on communication because women do so much of it. For most women, a relationship is all about two people sharing information with each other. Besides asking us guys to tell them what we’re thinking, women also are all too willing to tell us guys what they think. Men generally have no problem with sharing information, as long as the information can be shared in less verbal (i.e., more physical) ways.
As a guy who has been through a few failed relationships and as a professional communicator, I can tell you that there is usually a direct link between the success of a relationship and the ability of the two people to communicate with one another. I admit this is not earth-shattering news.
But have you ever wondered how communication in love translates into communication at work?
Many of us have two faces – the one we wear at home and the one we wear to work. (In fact, this is one reason so many extramarital affairs happen with co-workers; they see the charming, intelligent side of us rather than the side that lies on the sofa in our underwear, watching WWF and belching out loud). This might be true, but I believe there is no hiding our true communication styles.
A man who withholds his feelings, who refuses to be vulnerable with the woman he loves, probably withholds information from his co-workers. A woman who prides herself on telling her husband exactly what she’s thinking without regard to his bruised ego probably annoys her co-workers with her brash character assassinations in the break room. A guy who believes the universal grunt should suffice as an acceptable response to a sincere question from his girlfriend probably thinks the people who work for him should be able to interpret his gutturals. A woman who resents the fact that her boyfriend can’t read her mind about what she’d like to do this weekend probably doesn’t understand why her subordinates can’t read her mind about how she likes the work to be done.
Just as those barriers to open communication keep couples from experiencing the joy of a loving relationship, similar obstacles prevent us from being as productive and as fulfilled as we can be in our jobs. Improve the way you talk to your sweetie and you just might find you’re improving the way you talk to your associates.
Love is work. And our communication in love is our communication at work.
Do you see a correlation between your communication in love and your communication at work? Talk about it in Q&A.
There is no “normal” timetable to accept a change. Each person in every organization is unique. Things that bother some people don’t faze others. The same is true when it comes to the timetable that people have in terms of experiencing the four stages of a corporate change – awareness, understanding, acceptance and embracing the change. Select employees will understand, accept and embrace it once they are aware of the change, while others will take months, years or may never fully embrace it.
During the strategy development, establish the long-term vision for your change marketing program and short-term checkpoints. By setting short-term checkpoints you will help manage expectations on how quickly you can expect change to happen. You will also be able to reward and recognize your team for short-term achievements. In addition, you will have the opportunity to tweak any communications or programs that are not delivering results.
Refined Wisdom: Just as open communication in our personal lives depends on a certain level of trust, the same is true in our work lives. There simply are no perfect safeguards. The best business leaders can do is to set clear expectations of employee behavior, put as many safeguards in place as possible and – hold onto your seats – trust employees to do the right thing. |
Two recent news items shed light on how employee communication continues to be redefined and the sticky issues surrounding it.
A recent survey by a California-based business software company found that more than 43 percent of large U.S. corporations employ people to monitor outbound e-mail. A story last Wednesday in the Richmond Times-Dispatch said the area’s largest employers routinely check e-mails sent by employees to make sure they’re not leaking sensitive information.
A story published by Reuters on Saturday tells about the latest mainstream technology to be adapted by some corporations. Web logs – shortened to “blogs” – essentially are online journals written by everyday people for public consumption. One indication that blogs are picking up steam is that some bloggers received press credentials so they could write about the Democratic National Convention in July.
Now corporations are looking at the potential for blogs to be used as tools to enhance knowledge sharing and communication among employees. Not surprisingly, Microsoft and IBM are two leaders in the effort to introduce blogs to corporate America. The idea is to allow employees to post blogs on the company intranet – or perhaps even the public Web site, depending on the target audience – so they can share information more quickly and efficiently.
I work with companies to help them figure out the best ways to facilitate communication – from business leaders to employees, from employees to management, and laterally among employees. The flow of information is essential to any organization’s success and the less painful the communication, the better. Anyone who works in an organization with more than one employee knows exactly what I’m talking about.
Electronic media can greatly enhance communication. It’s difficult to imagine what we ever did before e-mail was introduced to the workplace. (Some might wish it never was as they spend hours a day creating and responding to e-mail.) Intranets, which are Web sites for employees, also can make communication and the flow of information easier. It looks like blogs might be the next big thing to find its way into our work lives – just as some companies also use message boards, chat rooms and desktop video.
The problem is that while many companies embrace the new technology, they also worry that it might be fraught with security problems. E-mail and Web-based technology offer just another way for proprietary information to leak to competitors, customers, the news media, and perhaps even criminals. This is true, but nothing kept employees from carrying sensitive documents out of the building with them in the days before e-mail. Nothing keeps employees from having one too many at the neighborhood block party and blurting out the name of the new product.
There simply are no perfect safeguards. The best business leaders can do is to set clear expectations of employee behavior, put as many safeguards in place as possible and – hold onto your seats – trust employees to do the right thing.
Just as open communication in our personal lives depends on a certain level of trust, the same is true in our work lives. I am not suggesting that companies should open the gates and throw caution to the wind for the sake of open communication. That would be foolish. However, there comes a point at which organizations must treat employees as responsible adults.
Routinely monitoring e-mails might be necessary in this day and age, but is it really necessary to completely restrict employees’ use of communication media? Such a hard line sends a bad message to employees, who then become increasingly distrustful and suspicious of management.
I expect blogs won’t become as ubiquitous as e-mail in American companies. I don’t believe there are many companies that trust their employees enough to give them that kind of freedom of expression. On the other hand, it’s interesting to think about the possibility of free-flowing information from one responsible employee to another.
An employee describes what led to leaving a job they loved, in an organization they respected, and people whom they enjoyed working with.
“Why did I leave? Good question. I was tired. Not like you might think, although I was physically tired sometimes. It might sound funny, but was tired in spirit and tired of feeling that way.
“I had been at the company for about eight years when I left. I really wanted that job and was excited when I got it. It was someplace I really wanted to be. For the first five years I was as engaged as they come. I felt like it was my company.
“When I started management said they wanted employees to make the company better, to make a difference. Sign me up! Even with the long hours and bad take out food those were great times. I was always looking for things that might improve or scuttle a project or decision and talking to others about what was going on. I made a difference, learned all the time and helped the organization achieve its goals. It doesn’t get much better than that, does it?
“Back then I knew I was appreciated too. Management would comment on my work and seek me out to participate in all kinds of projects. And although my co-workers and I didn’t always agree, we always listened to each other. That was the really great part. The respect everyone had for each other. Those project meetings and even the casual hallway conversations built trust across the organization and gave us a deep understanding of the business. We knew we could count on each other and we were doing important work.
“About two years ago things started to change. First we were growing and couldn’t keep up; everyone was spread so thin we were lucky to just keep things together. Then the market shifted and management decided to cut staff. It was the first time they didn’t ask for our involvement. Those of us who were left had to absorb additional work. There had always been pressure to meet short-term goals, but this was different. Suddenly speed trumped thinking and understanding. Questions weren’t appreciated. I was seen as resistant to change, a troublemaker. It’s not true; I know speed is important, but we kept missing important information just when we needed to really be on our game.
“Eventually I stopped trying. I just did what I was told. I know I had insights that could have helped us, but it didn’t matter. No one was listening. While I still liked and respected my co-workers, even those I disagreed with, I eventually realized I didn’t know as much about the business and its problems as I had. Neither did they. We had stopped learning. Decisions weren’t as sharp. Relationships weakened. When we needed to pull together, not only was the ‘can do’ spirit missing, so was the real knowledge.
“Like I said, coming to work used to be fun. When it became just a job I finally admitted to myself it didn’t matter if I was there. I got tired of not having fun, so I left.”
Things to think about:
U.S. job satisfaction continues to fall
Employee attitudes and expectations about work have changed
Employees are more confident about finding a job
The clock is ticking. How much fun are people having in your organization?
- Strategic communications help a business achieve its objectives. That is their purpose.
- Effective communications are those that produce measurable results and they can be a competitive differentiator.
- There are costs associated with communicating, but there can be costs associated with not communicating as well. Internal communications seek cost-effective and creative solutions to solve complex communications challenges.
- Employees are drowning in information, but starving for understanding. Our job is to make the important interesting.
- Credibility is the foundation upon which effective communication is built. Unless it is believed, a message has no worth.
- Face-to-face communication is the most desirable form of communication because it is immediate, personal and interactive. Most employees say their immediate supervisor is their preferred and most credible source of information about the business.
- Communication is, by definition, a two-way process. Feedback mechanisms must be part of every employee communication.
- Communication is a management responsibility. Internal Communications supports leaders by serving as consultants, facilitators and resource partners.
- As in any effective strategy, form should follow function. The medium is the message.
Corporate Communications often finds itself at the mercy of the organization to sets its agenda for the year. While Communications’ efforts should certainly support company strategy, consider these 5 Communications-specific trends that will influence the function’s ability to have a real impact in 2012.
1. Stakeholders have (even more) power.
The age of individual control over what, when, and how to consume information continues in 2012. New devices, like the Kindle Fire, new services, like Spotify, and new mobile apps, like Zite, that took off in 2011 will further enable people to act in ways natural to them. Chances are, reading/viewing/listening to dry corporate messages isn’t something most people like to do naturally! As a result, Communications’ approach to everything it creates must be stakeholder-centric, not company-centric.
Smart teams will kickoff the year by asking themselves, “Do we know where our key stakeholder groups go for information?” Determine how your stakeholders consume information with CEC’s audience listening guide , and then use that information to develop a stakeholder-centric communication plan .
2. Communicators look to build their business partnership skills.
In 2012, the Corporate Communications function grows up. Once just the PR-engine for the company, Communications is now expected to impact business results in a much different way by coaching leaders to communicate more effectively, developing internal communication systems for employees to connect with one another, and feeding stakeholder insight to business leaders, to name a few roles.
A new set of skills is required for communicators to live up to these new expectations. Clear writing and a solid understanding of channels won’t cut it, but a focus on business partnership skills such as critical thinking and negotiation will enable communicators to grow into the position of consultative business partner.
You must decide – as an organization and as an individual team leader – what spirit you intend to convey with the participation of your employees in social media.
If your intention is for them to be simply mechanical amplification vehicles for a very carefully crafted marketing message, that can work. You’ll likely see some results in terms of absolute reach and volume of short-term message resonance. You will sacrifice a degree of credibility on behalf of your individual representatives and personality and genuineness on behalf of your brand in favor of a consistent, safe(-r) message. You will also likely sacrifice culturally, since your employees will realize they’re part of a marketing machine, not someone who is entrusted to help build and shape a brand.
If your intention is for employees to become individual voices for your organization and unique representatives of your company’s values, personality and diversity, that can work too. You’ll likely see results in terms of trust and affinity for your brand as well as better identification of your advocates, both internal and external. You will sacrifice a certain amount of stability and potential consistency of message in favor of communications that are more unique and individual. You’ll also sacrifice some predictability around outcomes and need to rely on strong education and culture initiatives to guide your teams and hone their own sense of good judgment.
The bottom line: governance and guidance is important. But it’s a means to more scalable social media, not the end.
We’ve said many times here — and will continue to — that social business transformation is far more cultural than it is operational. Getting your employees involved is no different, and your policies and guidelines need to consider not just what you don’t want to happen, but instead what values, vision and intent you want your teams’ social media participation to convey.
INTEL
Always pause and think before posting. That said, reply to comments in a timely manner, when a response is appropriate. But if it gives you pause, pause. If you’re about to publish something that makes you even the slightest bit uncomfortable, don’t shrug it off and hit ‘send.’ Take a minute to review these guidelines and try to figure out what’s bothering you, then fix it. If you’re still unsure, you might want to discuss it with your manager or legal representative. Ultimately, what you publish is yours – as is the responsibility. So be sure.
Perception is reality. In online social networks, the lines between public and private, personal and professional are blurred. Just by identifying yourself as an Intel employee, you are creating perceptions about your expertise and about Intel by our shareholders, customers, and the general public-and perceptions about you by your colleagues and managers. Do us all proud. Be sure that all content associated with you is consistent with your work and with Intel’s values and professional standards.
It’s a conversation. Talk to your readers like you would talk to real people in professional situations. In other words, avoid overly pedantic or “composed” language. Don’t be afraid to bring in your own personality and say what’s on your mind. Consider content that’s open-ended and invites response. Encourage comments. You can also broaden the conversation by citing others who are blogging about the same topic and allowing your content to be shared or syndicated.
Whether you’re writing creatively, for academia, or blogs, one of the most important aspects of writing is often overlooked: the ability to give and receive constructive criticism.
If you know providing such constructive feedback isn’t your forte, you’re not sure if you’re doing it well, or you just want a refresher, you’re in luck! I have some tips and examples for you.
Giving Constructive Criticism
- Please never just say “it’s good” or “I liked it.” Okay, I’m glad… but what made it good? Why did you like it? I need a little bit more feedback. And that includes what you didn’t like. In fact…
- What you don’t like is probably the most valuable information. What is it about this piece that you don’t like? For example, “the voice didn’t seem very authentic,” or “I just don’t feel like this part fits in with the rest of the post.” Help me see where I can improve. That’s important, so let me say it again.
- Help the writer see where he or she can improve. There is no such thing as a perfect first draft. Even thoroughly edited final drafts are often not without their faults. Speak up and let the writer know what you think.
Receiving Constructive Criticism
- Remember that you are not your work. Just because I don’t like your outfit or your taste in music doesn’t mean that I don’t like you as a person. Likewise, just because someone doesn’t like something you’ve written, it doesn’t mean they don’t like you.
- Prompt the critic. When you ask for someone’s opinion, they might not always know how to give constructive criticism. If they say something like, “that’s good,” ask them why they liked it. Ask them where they think you can improve or what they found confusing. The more you prompt them, the more likely you’ll get the information you need (and the more likely they are to provide this information to you up front in the future since they know what you’re looking for).
- Remember that you are the author. In the end, it’s your work. You need to be happy with it. So while you can consider all of the feedback and constructive criticism you receive, you’re ultimately the one who decides whether or not to accept it.
Leadership is about change, but what is a leader to do when faced with ubiquitous resistance? Resistance to change manifests itself in many ways, from foot-dragging and inertia to petty sabotage to outright rebellions. The best tool for leaders of change is to understand the predictable, universal sources of resistance in each situation and then strategize around them. Here are the ten I’ve found to be the most common.
Loss of control. Change interferes with autonomy and can make people feel that they’ve lost control over their territory. It’s not just political, as in who has the power. Our sense of self-determination is often the first things to go when faced with a potential change coming from someone else. Smart leaders leave room for those affected by change to make choices. They invite others into the planning, giving them ownership.
Excess uncertainty. If change feels like walking off a cliff blindfolded, then people will reject it. People will often prefer to remain mired in misery than to head toward an unknown. As the saying goes, “Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t know.” To overcome inertia requires a sense of safety as well as an inspiring vision. Leaders should create certainty of process, with clear, simple steps and timetables.
Surprise, surprise! Decisions imposed on people suddenly, with no time to get used to the idea or prepare for the consequences, are generally resisted. It’s always easier to say No than to say Yes. Leaders should avoid the temptation to craft changes in secret and then announce them all at once. It’s better to plant seeds — that is, to sprinkle hints of what might be coming and seek input.
Everything seems different. Change is meant to bring something different, but how different? We are creatures of habit. Routines become automatic, but change jolts us into consciousness, sometimes in uncomfortable ways. Too many differences can be distracting or confusing. Leaders should try to minimize the number of unrelated differences introduced by a central change. Wherever possible keep things familiar. Remain focused on the important things; avoid change for the sake of change.
Loss of face. By definition, change is a departure from the past. Those people associated with the last version — the one that didn’t work, or the one that’s being superseded — are likely to be defensive about it. When change involves a big shift of strategic direction, the people responsible for the previous direction dread the perception that they must have been wrong. Leaders can help people maintain dignity by celebrating those elements of the past that are worth honoring, and making it clear that the world has changed. That makes it easier to let go and move on.
Full article via Harvard Business Review
While some may be impressed with how well you speak, the right people will be impressed with how well you listen. Great leaders are great listeners, and therefore my message today is a simple one – talk less and listen more. The best leaders are proactive, strategic, and intuitive listeners. They recognize knowledge and wisdom are not gained by talking, but by listening. Take a moment and reflect back on any great leader who comes to mind…you’ll find they are very adept at reading between the lines. The best leaders possess the uncanny ability to understand what is not said, witnessed, or heard. Warning: this isn’t your typical piece on listening – it isn’t going to coddle you and leave you feeling warm and fuzzy – it is intended for leaders and is rather blunt and to the point.
Psychologist Abraham Maslow theorized that people in all cultures have certain genetically-based, unchanging needs. He described these needs in a hierarchal fashion — with some needs being more basic or powerful than others. As these needs are satisfied, other higher needs emerge. The first four are:
- Physiological: not having hunger, thirst, bodily discomfort, etc.
- Safety/security: being out of danger
- Belonginess and Love: being affiliated with others and accepted
- Esteem: achieving, being competent, and gaining approval and recognition
After these are met, the second group of needs comes into play:
- Cognitive: wanting to know, understand, and explore.
- Aesthetic: seeking symmetry, order and beauty.
- Self-Actualization: finding self-fulfillment and realizing one’s potential.
- Self-Transcendence: connecting to something beyond themselves, or helping others find self-fulfillment and realize their potential.
Looking closely at these, it’s easy to understand why people need leaders? They do so because they believe those leaders will help them meet some or all of these needs. For example, a community may elect a mayor who will help bring prosperity to their town, while also going every Sunday to hear a minister who helps them along their religious path, while admiring the Chief of Police who keeps their streets safe, while all individually following leaders at work, and in school.
We follow people because we’re all looking for something more.
We’re looking for sincerity, for authenticity, for meaning and truth, for someone and something somewhere to believe in.
So, as a leader, if you don’t mean it, they’ll know. If you don’t really care, you won’t be able to pretend for long that you do. If you say one thing but do another, they’ll pick up on it. Quickly.
So, the first rule of leadership is to care. The second rule is to communicate in some way that you care – whether it’s in speeches, articles, webconferences, or simply the way you act in a meeting.
If you don’t care, don’t try to lead.
If you do care, make sure they know you do.
Suggested Books
Suggested Resources
http://www.conferenceboard.org
Delegation is a critical skill. “Your most important task as a leader is to teach people how to think and ask the right questions so that the world doesn’t go to hell if you take a day off,” says Jeffrey Pfeffer, the Thomas D. Dee II Professor of Organizational Behavior at Stanford University’s Graduate School of Business and author of What Were They Thinking?: Unconventional Wisdom About Management. Delegation benefits managers, direct reports, and organizations. Yet it remains one of the most underutilized and underdeveloped management capabilities. A 2007 study on time management found that close to half of the 332 companies surveyed were concerned about their employees’ delegation skills. At the same time, only 28% of those companies offered any training on the topic. “Most people will tell you they are too busy to delegate — that it’s more efficient for them to just do it themselves,” says Carol Walker, the president of Prepared to Lead, a consulting firm that focuses on developing young leaders. But both Walker and Pfeffer agree that it’s time to drop the excuses. Here’s how.
Watch for warning signs
You may not realize that you’re unnecessarily hoarding work. There are warning signs, however. “A classic sign of insufficient delegation is that you are working long hours and feel totally indispensable, while your staff isn’t terribly energized and keeps strangely regular hours,” says Walker. You may also feel that your team doesn’t take ownership over projects and that you’re the only one that cares. If they use phrases like, “I’m happy to help you with this,” it may be an indication that you’re doling out tasks, not handing over responsibility.Understand why you’re not delegating
There are plenty of reasons why managers don’t delegate. Some are perfectionists who feel it’s easier to do everything themselves, or that their work is better than others’. Pfeffer calls this “self-enhancement bias.” Some believe that passing on work will detract from their own importance, while others lack self-confidence and don’t want to be upstaged by their subordinates. No matter how self-aware you are, don’t assume that you’re immune to these biases, Pfeffer advises. Instead, you need to proactively ask yourself what you’re going to do to counterbalance them. Walker notes that letting go of these misconceptions can be extremely difficult and often organizational culture doesn’t help. “Giving up being ‘the go-to expert’ takes tremendous confidence and perspective even in the healthiest environments,” she says. “It’s even more challenging in the average company, where being a good manager is seen as a ‘nice to have,’ but where producing the core deliverable is what is truly esteemed.” But accepting that you can’t do everything yourself is a critical first step to delegating.
Writers can find inspiration anywhere. Because I write mainly about workplace environments and company culture, I turn to a fairly conventional source- the business sections of the newspaper. There’s usually something in every issue that gets me wondering. This week a business customs column inspired me to wonder about “what’s not spoken’.
Let me explain. In the column a reader asked what to do about cubicle-mates who participate so loudly on conference calls that he or she is seriously distracted. Thrilled to see a question so directly related to the types of interpersonal challenges I see as an Ombudsman, I raced to read the answer. Boy, I was disappointed.
The author offered these suggestions, which are reasonable but certainly don’t promote communication:
Ask your supervisor to tell everyone to be more aware of noise
Ask your supervisor to relocate you.
Listen to music as a diversion.
You see the problem? None of these strategies encourage collaboration. It’s almost implied that it wouldn’t be appropriate for the reader to make her colleagues aware of the situation or engage them in collaborative problem-solving. I wondered if there was a message in what wasn’t being suggested.
Here’s what I heard as the message: avoid talking = avoid conflict.
By not mentioning talking as an option for resolving things, the author is actually discouraging the use of talking. Talking directly to each other is still one of the best ways to solve problems, I think. Yet, the author chose to ignore that tool, saying “I prefer the path of least resistance whenever possible.’ Guess that means communication is the path of most resistance?
I bet many managers and employees across the country share a similar preference for avoidance and silence. The trouble with that stance is that old, unresolved conflicts eventually resurface, often at the most inopportune moments.
Don’t read me to say I think it’s wrong to ask for help to facilitate communications in sticky situations. I’m only saying that open discussion is a better first option.
Here’s my recommendation to the reader: Talk to each other.
Just like the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. The quickest way to end a dispute or disagreement is to talk directly and honestly with those involved. Talk is such an effective yet inexpensive tool I wonder why people don’t do it more often.
Dina Lynch
Here are four ideas that will help you become a more inclusive leader:
1. Let Them Build It. To construct and convey key messages, smart leaders don’t always rely on professional communicators or on elaborate messaging campaigns. Instead, they recognize that often it’s front-line employees who know best how to tell a given company story. (For an example of a grassroots project that resulted in an employee-generated book, see our earlier post on that topic.)
2. Lead by Following. The notion that senior executives might maintain a blog or a Twitter feed — one that employees, along with other company stakeholders, can follow — is fairly commonplace. In some instances, though, leaders reverse that equation: In a bid to share the digital limelight, they invite rank-and-file employees to become company-sponsored bloggers.
3. Send a Messenger (Not Just a Message). People today are skeptical of slickly produced brand messages. They’re skeptical of slick official spokespeople, too. Leaders who want to build public trust in their company brand, therefore, often recruit employees to serve as brand ambassadors. Training people who work for a company to speak for that company is a marketing practice that doubles as an engagement-building practice.
4. Lose Control. It’s hard to break free of the mindset that treats communication as a control function. But many leaders find that ceding control over what employees say on company channels — on an intranet discussion forum, for example — means gaining a new way to tap into the talent, the insight, and the passion of their people. They also find that self-policing by employees works to keep such discussion from going off-track.
For an inclusive leader, the term “employee communication” takes on a provocative new meaning. For generations, that term has referred to communication aimed at employees. Today, by contrast, more and more leaders are seeking ways to leverage the value of communication performed by employees.
In 2009 Steven Kaplan, Mark Klebanov, and Morten Sorenson completed a study called “Which CEO Characteristics and Abilities Matter?” They relied on detailed personality assessments of 316 CEOs and measured their companies’ performances. There is no one personality style that leads to corporate or any other kind of success. But they found that the traits that correlated most powerfully with success were attention to detail, persistence, efficiency, analytical thoroughness, and the ability to work long hours. That is to say, the ability to organize and execute.