© 2012 Pat Lynch. All rights reserved.

To sum up, a true merit pay system works poorly in most organizations, if it exists at all. In unionized settings, including those in public sector organizations, merit pay is seldom seen. While a great concept, merit pay mostly does not live up to expectations.

First, generational differences are only one type of difference; the workplace is rife with others. Leaders must educate themselves about other kinds of differences as well. Second, and more important, focusing on differences, whatever their source, is unproductive at best, and destructive at worst. Here are eight reasons why this is true:

1. Differences foster an “us vs. them” mentality, dividing people rather than enabling them to collaborate and work productively.

2. Differences often encourage distrust, which cripples collaboration and productivity.

3. Differences generally are based on traits that cannot be changed – e.g., age, race, gender, ethnicity – and that usually are irrelevant to the task at hand.

4. Focusing on differences doesn’t allow people to see what they have in common or to discover what they can learn from one another.

5. Making employment-related decisions based on some of these differences is illegal in the U.S. – not to mention that doing so is a bad management practice.

6. Focusing on differences emphasizes what WON’T or DOESN’T work rather than on what DOES work.

7. When we seek differences, we find them. Too often, forward momentum then comes to a screeching halt.

8. Differences often are seen and treated as obstacles to success instead of as enablers of greater outcomes.

Would you want to work in an environment with those characteristics? What if, instead of focusing on differences, leaders kept the spotlight on what people have in common? Here are just a few of the reasons why emphasizing how we are alike makes good business sense:

1. Changing the question from “How are we different?” to “How can we be successful together?” opens the door to entirely new and actionable answers.

2. Commonalities allow people to move forward by focusing on opportunities instead of on obstacles.

3. When we seek opportunities we will find them, which means the sky becomes the limit. While we won’t always reach the stars, we will get much closer to them than if we had set our aspirations much lower.

4. Differences among people are not going away, so sticking your head in the sand won’t change things.

5. Commonalities “seasoned” with differences create immense learning opportunities and unleash creativity and innovation.

6. The emphasis is on what WILL or COULD work.

7. Emphasizing commonalities opens the door to the best of all worlds, allowing us to move forward by learning, adapting, and growing as individuals and as organizations.

8. Commonalities are seen as enablers – of action, creativity, innovation, collaboration, and knowledge sharing.

While it’s important to learn about what makes people different so we can understand others’ perspectives, it would be a mistake to dwell on those differences. Consider what a difference it would make in the work environment if leaders emphasized what’s common across human beings – i.e., that people generally want to succeed, to be respected and feel valued, to be part of something bigger than themselves, and to enjoy what they do. Imagine what could happen in YOUR organization if people focused on what unites them rather than on what divides them. In which environment would your employees be most productive, engaged, and committed? The choice is yours. What will it be?

© 2011 Pat Lynch. All rights reserved.

Wow! THAT’s the kind of experience your customers have when you align employees’ interest with organizational goals. (And yes, I did buy some baked goods before I left.) Yet I find that many executives and business owners don’t know how to achieve this alignment, which is critical for both employees’ and leaders’ success. When I am asked (frequently), “How can leaders align employees’ interests with organizational goals?” I have a two-step reply:

1. Create a vivid “big picture” or vision for the organization, and communicate it widely, frequently, and consistently, using multiple media and language that is appropriate for the audiences; AND

2. Paint the employees into the picture – i.e., make sure that each worker can state specifically what value he or she provides to the organization.

Both steps are important: employees who both see the organization’s “big picture” – i.e., its mission, vision, goals – AND can articulate clearly the contributions they make to achieving that picture are highly motivated individuals. In fact, they will be so energized that you will have to get out of their way so they can work! These are people who cannot wait to get to work every day, because they know they are making a significant difference in the world.

When I worked at Fed Ex during the early years (late 1970s and early 1980s), I couldn’t wait to get to work every morning because the environment was electric. We were on a mission to deliver critical packages “absolutely, positively overnight.” To empower us to do that, executives pushed decision-making down the ranks as far as possible and gave us great autonomy. Risk-taking was rewarded as long as mistakes were treated as learning experiences. When I traveled, I got a chill every time I saw a FedEx truck, and I loved the immediate attention I got when people discovered what company I worked for and peppered me with questions about it. Because purple is one of the company’s colors, my colleagues and I used to claim that “purple blood” ran through our veins.

What’s the secret to create such a highly engaged, productive workforce? Creating a clear “line of sight” between each individual and the organization’s goals – i.e., painting a clear, compelling vision and showing every employee how he or she contributes to it. Some of the elements I just named are very effective in maintaining that engagement – e.g., autonomy, trust in employees’ competence, and a culture that supports prudent risk-taking. Although I worked in staff positions, I still could articulate, and sometimes physically point to, what I did or contributed to doing. The visceral reaction I experienced every time I saw a FedEx truck or plane – either in person or in a movie or on television – meant that I felt a part of the company’s success. As a result, the company’s mission – “absolutely, positively overnight” – became mine as well.

If you would like to learn about a simple and quick technique to determine whether your employees are aligned with your organization’s goals, I invite you to read my article, The Transforming Power of Asking, “What’s Your Job?” Then let us know what you discover!

© 2011 Pat Lynch. All rights reserved.

1. “How high a priority are your employees?” AND

2. “Would your employees agree with your answer?”

Leaders who want their organizations to be successful first and foremost must focus on helping their employees become fully successful. When employees are fully successful, their productivity skyrockets, and customers are delighted because the organization is able to deliver, or over-deliver, its promised value.

I learned this secret to high productivity early in my career when I worked for FedEx. Fred Smith, the founder and CEO of the company, anchored the corporate culture on this simple philosophy: People – Service – Profit. Fred’s belief was that if you take care of your people, they will provide excellent service, which will increase profits. I have yet to see any evidence to disprove his belief. To the contrary, I have seen company after company adopt some version of this philosophy. Why? Because it works!

How do you make employees a high priority? I developed a research-based tool called the Employer Performance Scorecard that identifies four areas that influence employees’ perceptions of how they are treated. I encourage my clients to use this scorecard to help them assess employees’ perspectives about how they are treated on a day-to-day basis. High scores mean you place a high priority on employees; low scores mean you have work to do!

Here are the four areas and representative elements in each one:

1. Managers and supervisors
The #1 reason why employees leave organizations and why they join unions is dissatisfaction with the immediate supervisor. You can help employees be successful if you ensure their supervisors are meeting their needs effectively. This requires that you set your supervisors up for success (e.g., provide the proper training and tools) so they are able to manage effectively.

2. Organizational culture
Employees who feel they are part of something larger than themselves and that their views are respected are likely to perceive that they are valued. You can help employees be fully successful if you ensure they have “voice” (i.e., they feel they are heard) and that they understand how they contribute to the organization’s mission or vision.

3. Organizational processes
You increase employees’ ability to be fully successful when you ensure that workplace decisions and processes are procedurally fair, that communication is two-way, and that leaders truly “walk the talk” – i.e., their behaviors are consistent with their words.

4. Rewards and recognition
Research consistently shows that pay generally is not THE reason for employee dissatisfaction, disengagement, or turnover as long as there is a reasonable level of compensation. Employee commitment to their own success (and by extension, that of the organization) skyrockets when workers are recognized for their contributions to the organization. There are hundreds of no- and low-cost ways to recognize your workers in ways that are meaningful to them. Truly, a little recognition goes a LONG way!

How would you answer the two questions I posed at the beginning of this message? If you are not sure, or if you would like additional information about how to ensure that you employees are a high priority, I invite you to take our Employee-centered Workplace® Assessment. And let us know what YOU do to make sure your employees are a high priority!

© 2011 Pat Lynch. All rights reserved.

Here are three reasons why adopting the “doing more with less” approach is a mistake:

1. It’s counterproductive: surviving employees, already demoralized by layoffs and furloughs, perceive that they are being asked to pick up the slack without being compensated for doing so – and they’re right!

2. Doing more with less is not sustainable long-term. There’s only so much you can add to existing workloads before people and systems begin to break down.

3. Employees become disengaged, burned out, resentful, and cynical – and they will leave the organization the first chance they get.

In addition, I’ve found that when they try to “do more with less,” people start seeing everything as a priority. And of course, when everything is a priority, then nothing is a priority.

Here are two ways you can avoid falling into the fallacy of “doing more with less:”

1. Embrace the concept of doing LESS with less

This actually increases productivity: employees know you are being realistic and they appreciate your honesty so they reciprocate with good performance. Employee commitment is likely to increase when you’re truthful about what you’re asking your workers to do. If you would like to learn more about this issue, here are two articles that go into more detail:

The Fallacy of “Doing More with Less”

How to Prioritize: Doing LESS with Less Effectively

2. Set priorities effectively, and allocate available resources accordingly

Let’s be clear about two facts about priorities that people often ignore. First, priorities are what you DO, not what you say you will do. Realistically, you can only have a handful of priorities at any given time. (That’s ONE handful!) Second, priorities involve choices about time. By saying you don’t have time to do something, such as going to your kids’ soccer game, you effectively are saying that other things are more important to you at the moment.

A few years ago, I developed a straightforward process for setting priorities. Here it is in a nutshell:

First, identify clearly your organization’s vision or mission. Beginning with the end in mind is the first step in organizational success.

Second, use that vision to categorize everything you do (e.g., evaluate performance, develop products and services) as critical, very important, or important.

Third, devise a realistic formula for allocating resources based on the above three categories. For example, while you might decide to allocate 100% of your resources to items in the “critical” category, it’s probably more realistic to devote 70-80% of them to the critical priorities, 15% to very important items, and 5% to important items.

If you would like more detailed, step-by-step information about this process, you may obtain the template, Pat Lynch’s Process for Prioritizing Organizational Services and Programs, by clicking here and checking the appropriate box on the list from my web site. You will receive the link to the template immediately via e-mail.

What are your thoughts or experiences about doing LESS with less? Let us know!

© 2011 Pat Lynch. All rights reserved.

I recently conducted a one-hour free teleseminar, 7 Strategies Executives and Business Owners Must Know for Organizational Success in Today’s Economy, in which I identified and described time-tested concepts, tools, and techniques that can make your life much easier and put your organization on (or back on) the road to success. Here are a few of the topics we covered:

• How to set priorities and allocate resources
• Techniques to increase employee engagement
• Why insisting that your employees “do more with less” is a mistake
• How to align employees’ interests with organizational goals
• No- or low-cost tools and techniques that ensure organizational success

If you are struggling with the challenges caused by having to produce the same results with fewer resources, then I invite you to invest one hour of your time in listening to this free teleseminar. Then let us know which strategies you found most useful in helping to make your organization more successful!

© 2011 Pat Lynch. All rights reserved.

Myth #1: Labor relations laws apply only to non-unionized workplaces

Reality: With a few exceptions, non-management workers whose organizations are in the private and non-profit sectors and have one or more employees are covered by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and its amendments. Examples of exceptions are workers in the airline and railroad industries (who are covered under the Railway Labor Act), public sector workers (who are covered under different laws), domestic workers, agricultural workers, consultants, and those who work in family-owned businesses. In other words, federal labor laws apply to most workers in the U.S.

Myth #2: There are two interests represented in the labor-management relationship

Reality: There actually are three “players” in the labor-management relationship who have some divergent and some overlapping interests: employees, management, and unions. Although many people believe that the terms “union” and “employees” are synonymous, they are not.

Myth #3: Only Congress can change or amend federal labor laws

Reality: Unlike most other federal laws, labor laws are changed primarily outside of the halls of Congress. The issuance of presidential executive orders is one way to effect changes that apply to federal contractors and subcontractors. However, the most common way for these laws to be changed is through decisions issued by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which is the regulatory agency responsible for administering the NLRA, as amended. The Board’s decisions, which are rendered based on cases that come before them for resolution, have the force of law. Importantly, NLRB decisions do NOT rely on or honor precedents set by decisions of previous Boards. As a result, labor law provisions can and do change. This means that compliance with federal labor laws requires one to keep a close eye on NLRB decisions, as they are subject to change.

Myth #4: The primary reason employees join unions is economic

Reality: Research consistently shows that the #1 reason why employees join unions is dissatisfaction with their immediate supervisors. Employers who make their workers a high priority ensure that their supervisors are well trained and have the support they need to take care of employees.

Myth #5: U.S. unions are too weak to effect meaningful change in the workplace

Reality: Although only 11.9% of workers in the U.S. were unionized in 2010 (per the Bureau of Labor Statistics), the current President, Secretary of Labor, and most Democrat members of Congress are union-friendly (which is not the same as being employee-friendly). Separately and together, people in these positions can use their respective powers to change the ways that management and employees interact in the workplace.

Myth #6: Employers should not discuss unionization unless/until a union organizing campaign begins

Reality: The worst thing employers can do is to hide their heads in the sand about this issue. Many are afraid that if they bring up the subject of unions, employees will start talking about joining a union. I’ve got news for them: employees will talk about unions irrespective of what management does or does not say. Ignoring the issue does not make it go away; what it does is cause employers to give up their important responsibility of educating their employees about their (workers’) rights and about management’s perspective. Importantly, employers that are subjected to employer neutrality clauses are prohibited from saying anything to their workers once a union organizing campaign begins, so if they have said nothing until then, they lose their right to do so going forward. As a result, employees will not be fully informed about the choice they must make.

The bottom line for labor relations can be assessed by answers to two questions:

1. How high a priority are employees in your organization?
2. Do your employees agree with your assessment?

If the answers are not “very high” and “yes,” then you have work to do.

© 2011 Pat Lynch. All rights reserved.

Some states are taking advantage of this backlash to curtail or dismantle completely public sector workers’ collective bargaining processes. While discussing public sector pension reform efforts, the executive director of the California Labor Federation recently was quoted as accusing partisan lawmakers across the country of undertaking a “…strategy that goes beyond simply fixing the problems as we know them.” Presumably he wants them to stick to the pension funding issues and leave everything else alone – i.e., maintain the status quo.

Aspiring to the status quo is a big mistake. Simply “fixing” public pension systems is like treating the symptoms of a recurring illness and ignoring the underlying cause. While the symptoms may go away in the short-term, they will recur – often at a much more severe level. The cause itself must be addressed and a workable, long-term resolution achieved. There is overwhelming evidence that the status quo is not working any more. It’s time to stop merely “fixing” the problem and begin working toward eradicating its source.

Unfunded or under-funded pension liabilities in the millions and billions of dollars are grabbing headlines because they drastically reduce the amount of money available for state and local government services. As serious an issue as this is, in fact it is a symptom of a larger and more complex problem, namely the process by which public sector employees are compensated. That process is dysfunctional, which means that a continuation of the status quo is not sustainable.

There are many aspects of public sector compensation systems to consider, including what form the compensation takes (e.g., current vs. deferred salary, types and levels of benefits) and how pay is determined and changed. In unionized workplaces, these issues are addressed through a negotiation process. Bargaining often is conducted between elected officials and labor unions whose leaders provide substantial support in the form of money and campaign workers to labor-friendly candidates during elections. It seemed easy for lawmakers to agree to generous pensions and other terms of employment whose results wouldn’t be felt for years, or even decades – long after the elected officials had retired or (more likely in these days of term limits) moved on. How can that dynamic not influence the provisions of the resulting contracts? Who is looking out for the public in this process?

Providing short-term “solutions” to long-term problems has done a disservice to the public and to the workers who agreed to the employment conditions they were offered. Let’s not forget, however, that there are at least two parties to every contract, and that both must agree to its terms. Public sector unions did not impose their terms on elected officials; both sides were parties to the negotiated agreements. Unfortunately the public has been woefully uninformed about these issues. Yet whose fault is that? How many members of the public have taken the initiative to seek out that information?

In short, there is plenty of blame to go around. But playing the blame game is counterproductive because it doesn’t change anything. “Fixing” the problem with an eye on maintaining the status quo is not a viable option because it doesn’t address the underlying dysfunction. Instead, the focus must be on (a) what government services we as a society are willing to pay for, (b) compensating public sector employees fairly, (c) creating transparency and accountability in budget processes, and (d) implementing a plan that will enable us to achieve those objectives.

It’s time to stop “fixing” the problem by applying short-term “solutions” to long-term issues. We need to go well beyond the status quo, which is not functional or sustainable, to create a process that serves employees and the public well. What are we waiting for?

© 2011 Pat Lynch. All rights reserved.

1. Make employees a high priority

Why: (a) Employees who are a high priority serve customers well, which means that everyone benefits; and (b) when employees feel that senior management really cares about them, their productivity, morale, and engagement increase.

How: Develop an employee-centered workplace®, which is an environment in which every person, program, process, and system is focused on helping employees be fully successful.

2. Embrace the concept of doing “LESS with less”

Why: (a) This approach recognizes the fallacy of doing “more with less,” and (b) because employees are more productive and less stressed, morale increases.

How: Prioritize by focusing relentlessly on the organization’s mission, then jettison everything that does not support the mission.

3. Ensure alignment with the “big picture”

Why: Employees who feel they are part of something bigger than themselves are more engaged and committed, and they have higher morale than those who feel no connection.

How: Ensure that each employee sees clearly (a) the organization’s “big picture” AND (b) the contribution he/she makes to achieving it.

4. Develop an appreciative culture

Why: (a) A positive environment encourages employee engagement, increases collaboration and morale, and decreases defensiveness; and (b) a little appreciation = a huge ROI.

How: Have leaders insist on, and model, positive language and behaviors.

5. Show employees they have choices

Why: When people feel they have more control, their focus, productivity, engagement, morale, and self-confidence tend to increase.

How: Teach employees how to develop framing skills and make healthy choices about how to manage their situations.

6. Incorporate procedural fairness into organizational decision-making

Why: (a) Employees will accept negative outcomes IF they believe the decision-making processes are fair; and (b) fair processes increase trust.

How: Ensure all processes incorporate the elements of procedural fairness.

Leaders who have implemented these six strategies should have a high level of confidence in their ability to retain key employees. Those who are missing some or all of the strategies are likely to see their turnover skyrocket as the recovery gains momentum – and it will be the good performers who leave in droves, not the mediocre or poor ones. Which outcome do you foresee for your organization? And if you don’t like the answer, what do you plan to do about it?

© 2011 Pat Lynch. All rights reserved.