To retain the best employees, a company must give them at least some role in decision making. By doing this, enlightened managers achieve a remarkably simple goal--they grant their employees the privilege of doing what they were hired to do in the first place.
An increasing number of companies have done more than talk about this. They've turned what originally was an interesting idea-- listening to employee ideas and giving them the authority to implement the best of them into an integral part of the workplace.
A national survey of 1000 employees, conducted by an independent research firm for Robert Half International in 1990, indicated that they believe managers are practicing what they preach when it comes to giving employees more input: 64 percent of employees claimed to have been given more authority to make decisions than they had been five years prior to the survey.
Geographically, employees in the Northeast, where many of America's oldest companies are headquartered, reported a greater change in management than did their counterparts elsewhere. The West, usually considered to be in the forefront of new workplace concepts, scored lowest of the four geographical regions.
The results of this survey are encouraging for those who advocate this approach. However, a significant segment of American business must catch up if the concept is to be turned into workplace reality. There still remains 30 percent of employees who believe they've been given less authority than they had five years ago.
Encourage Employees' Suggestions
Previously, the suggestion box represented the extent of employee input into operations and policies. In some cases it was exactly that, a forum through which employees could advance their ideas. The problem was, and still is with many companies, that it was a symbol rather than an active participatory program. Suggestions were given a cursory glance and then discarded.
For any philosophy of employee input to work, management must be committed to seriously considering all ideas. Suggestions needn't be accepted, but if employees learn that their suggestions aren't even considered, better ones will not be forthcoming. Nothing lowers employee morale faster than when management makes a show of listening to employees, but does nothing to actually implement their good ideas. Better to have no suggestion box at all than to use it as a bogus motivational tool.
Power, published by Barricade Books, Inc. (1992), is a powerful book written by Martin Edelston, publisher of such popular informational newsletters as Bottom Line Personal and Boardroom Reports. In Power he outlines a suggestion system that has proved effective and extremely useful in his publishing company. By encouraging thousands of suggestions from his staff, the company has tripled its sales without increasing the number of employees, has practically eliminated turnover, has generated impressive profits, and boasts an inventory of excellent projects to be introduced over time.
The basic idea came from Peter Drucker, a foremost expert in management, who recommended, "Have everyone who comes to a meeting be prepared to give two ideas for making his/her own department's work more productive ideas that will enhance the company as a whole."
For the system to work optimally, management is required to respond to every idea, good or bad. The system gets rolling with each employee offering two suggestions. They're read and evaluated weekly, and each worthwhile suggestion earns cash for the employee who came up with it--a dollar, five dollars, as much as 50 dollars. The money is not the motivational force, however. It's the excitement and spirit the system generates that makes it work. Accepted ideas can be as big as a concept for a new publication or as small as suggesting the need for larger wastebaskets.
Since the Power system was initiated at Edelston's company four years ago, absenteeism and lateness have dropped significantly. It's a happy, spirited, productive place to work, and there continues to be no shortage of ideas. Each employee averages 200 of them in a year's time.
Respond to Employees' Ideas for Improvement
There invariably is a gap between how employees perceive management and how management perceives itself. This is especially true where ideas and suggestions from employees are concerned.
Managers of 200 of the nation's largest companies were asked years back if they believed they currendy gave employees more authority to make decisions and to take action than they did five years ago. A resounding 88 percent claimed they did. (As mentioned, 64 percent of employees in our survey felt that way.)
The difference between employee and management responses could be due to a variety of factors. The acceptance of input might have increased for some employees, but not enough to cause them to answer in the affirmative. In such cases, it's incumbent on management to do a better job of communicating the changes it has instituted.
On the other hand, it could be that management believes it has responded fairly to employee ideas, but hasn't in any tangible manner. This often occurs when individual managers attempt to listen to employee ideas in a company atmosphere of, for the most part, rigid hierarchical authority.
Being open to employee ideas within a department can help to an extent, but the overall impact is muffled unless the concept and its implementation, fueled by upper management's firm commitment, is endorsed companywide. Like cross-discipline training, management buy-in is essential.
Encourage Employees to Take Risks
The philosophy that encourages employee input inherently demands a certain level of prudent risk taking on everyone's part, coupled with the assurance that no one will be penalized for failure. The "permission" to take prudent risks must emanate from the top. Otherwise, visionary middle managers who wish to encourage their employees to take risks will be reluctant to do so. If, on the other hand, those same middle managers are encouraged by their superiors to reach for success through prudent risk taking, they'll be significantly more comfortable urging their people to do the same.
More than the concept must be "sold" to upper management, however. As with any effective presentation, the benefits need to be explained in tangible, not vague, terms.
- What projected increase in the bottom-line might reasonably be expected?
- Will the projected increase in employee morale and productivity justify the investment required to implement a program of this scope?
- Will costly turnover be reduced?
If properly presented, a program such as this might be approved on a trial basis. That's good enough, provided that the period of time allowed is sufficient for the program to show results, and that management support is greater than half-hearted.
Once the concept has been bought, it's time for middle managers to call their people together to lay out the agreed upon guidelines. Specificity is important. How far will they be allowed to reach? What levels of risk are acceptable?
Early in any formal program, employees should be encouraged to discuss with their managers those "risky" ventures they contemplate undertaking. This is not intended to stifle initiative. Rather, early involvement between employee and manager is designed to enhance the potential for success of ideas that have an element of prudent risk. Managers, using their experience, might make suggestions that strengthen the employee's idea, rather than stand in its way.
This early interaction also helps to clarify the structure of the program and its limits. Once those factors are more fully understood and the program has been in operation for a period of time, less managerial interjection is usually necessary. Employees are able to recognize that they have been given real power to help shape not only the company's future, but also their own.
Foster Trust between Managers and Employees
The biggest potential problem is obvious. If managers give the green light for employees to take prudent risks, and then become critical if failures result from those decisions, the worth of the program is not only diminished, a destructive field of distrust is created. Better never to have initiated a plan than to put it into effect, and then back off on promises.
Companies that enthusiastically support employee risk taking take the concept of encouraging prudent risk a step further. They've established various forms of rewarding "smart risks," even if those risks do not result in success. What this says to employees is that the company not only believes in its employees ideas, but also is sincere when it says that prudent risk is encouraged. Those who seize the opportunity but fail need not fear repercussions. In fact, they might even receive a bonus for their efforts.
It's axiomatic that the more employees feel a true part of a company, the harder they'll work to achieve its goals. They have to know what those goals are, however. An open and ongoing communication must exist at all levels and flow both up and down the chain of command.
Trust should flow both ways, too. Without it, even the best conceived plans of employee motivation and retention fail to achieve their true potentials.
Listening to employees and allowing (even encouraging) them to take risks isn't just a nice idea, it's already in practice in thousands of businesses across America. Those companies that have already embraced it are enjoying the fruits of higher morale, increased productivity from leaner staffs, a marked decrease in employee turnover, and, ultimately, a stronger bottom-line. When employees are given enough latitude to achieve their full potential, a company's full potential is likely to be realized as well.
