2015-06-04 13:32:59
Francesca GinoBradley Staats
When we talk to managers about what their workers are lacking, we hear a common
refrain: We need employees who can think, not just follow orders. The
complaint is usually followed by an observation about how the world is changing
too quickly to predict customers demands, or that competitors are at their
throats. The only way to thrive, or even survive, these managers conclude, is
to find workers who can co-create value with customers and constantly improve
operations.
The problem is not surprising. For the better part of the past 100 years, the
main operating model in management was to identify the best processes, or at
least very good ones, and then have workers follow them to a tee. Responding to
this need, organizations are rolling out training programs to build critical
thinking and process-improvement skills.
These steps move in the right direction but by themselves are insufficient. If
organizations want to enable workers to bring not only their hands but also
their heads to work, then jobs need to be redesigned to give people ownership
of (1) how they perform tasks, (2) their identity, and (3) their time.
The process. The first step involves shifting ownership of the process from the
manager to the worker. All too frequently, we hear managers complain that their
employees don t think for themselves. Yet these same managers punish their
subordinates for failing to follow instructions. To avoid this pitfall,
managers need to separate the outcome from the process. That means specifying
what good work should look like without locking down all elements of the
process. Toyota is renowned for striking this balance. All output is specified,
but then workers are expected to continuously improve the work process. This
same approach has also been used effectively in software and health care.
Giving workers a hand in the process while still holding them accountable for
the output is good for performance. It ensures that when problems occur, they
are solved by the person who is closest to the situation (and quite possibly
the one who caused the problem). Note that a process can still be specified
as is the case in the auto, software, and health care examples above but
workers are free to experiment with change. With control of the process,
individuals are able to continue to develop and learn. A recent study of
Millennials in the workplace by PwC found that the benefit they most valued
from employers wasn t more money (that was number three), but rather training
and development. Thus, shifting ownership of the process to frontline
individuals will improve engagement and performance.
Identity. To engage workers heads, organizations need to help them gain
ownership of their identity at work specifically, by bringing their true and
best selves to work. To explore this idea, we ran a field experiment with
Wipro, an Indian business-process-outsourcing (BPO) firm. As at many firms,
onboarding at Wipro was traditionally all about the rules, regulations, and
history of the firm. Given that onboarding can be a stressful time for
individuals, this organizationally focused approach makes a great deal of
sense: individuals need simply to learn how to behave in clearly defined ways.
The downside to this process, however, is that it often leads people to lose
their sense of identity at work and gradually become disengaged from their
jobs.
We made a simple change to the onboarding process to see what would happen if
the focus shifted from the organization to the individual. During an hour of
the first day of the onboarding process, new Wipro employees were asked to
think and write about who they were when they were at their best and then
introduce themselves to others in their entering cohort this way. At the end of
the day, we gave them a fleece and a badge, both with their name to heighten
this sense of individuality. So we d have a group to compare them to, we not
only created a control group that received the firm s normal onboarding
process, we also created an organizational group that focused on the company
for an hour and received a company fleece and a badge with the company s name
on it.
We then checked in on the workers over the next seven months. We found that
those who focused on their own identity were more than 20% less likely to leave
the firm than those in the control and organizational groups and also received
better customer-service scores. Remarkably, these gains were achieved from a
small focus on individual identity on the first day of training. These
employees still had to follow the organization s existing script and processes
on the call-center floor; however, they had been better prepared by the ability
to bring themselves to work.
The implications for operational decision making can be pushed even further. In
not-yet-published research, Wharton School professor Adam Grant has found that
job crafting that is, having the ability to reshape one s actual work can
lead to improved performance and happiness. By giving employees the right to be
themselves, even within the bounds set by the organization, firms can better
engage their workers.
Time. Above, we cited a survey that found that development was in first place
and money in third on the list of what Millennials what from work. What came in
second? Time! Increasingly, workers are looking for ways to gain control of
their schedules. Many of the most innovative new companies have built their
entire operating model around this premise. Companies such as Uber and Airbnb
rely on individuals who want flexibility when providing their services.
Similarly, companies with call centers are tapping into individuals with
similar priorities. For example, LiveOps is a virtual call center where workers
act as independent contractors for different customers. Companies such as
American Express and Jet Blue have drawn on this pool of labor.
Even if your operations require an on-site presence, there may be ways to give
employees greater time flexibility. Combined with process ownership, which
includes accountability for outcomes, time flexibility allows individuals to
consider how best to complete the work that needs to be done within the
constraints of the company and their own lives. Such flexibility not only
improves engagement but also increases hours spent on the job as individuals
respond to their enhanced commitment. Clearly, offering time flexibility is
easier in some contexts than others. For example, retail stores need labor at
times that may be inconvenient for employees. Even in such cases, however,
companies may be able to create flexibility by giving opportunities to trade
shifts.
The operations of the future must be adaptable and dynamic. Individuals will
need to think on their feet, not just follow orders. Giving relevant training
is important, but it s equally necessary to set up the operation for success by
giving workers ownership of the process, their identity, and their time.
Francesca Gino is a professor at Harvard Business School, a faculty affiliate
of the Behavioral Insights Group, and the author of Sidetracked: Why Our
Decisions Get Derailed, and How We Can Stick to the Plan (Harvard Business
Review Press, 2013). She cochairs an HBS executive education program on
applying behavioral economics to organizational problems. Follow her on Twitter
@francescagino.
Bradley Staats is an associate professor at the University of North Carolina s
Kenan-Flagler Business School. Follow him on Twitter @brstaats.