What it Means to Work Here
Work environments run the gamut, from the unstructured Google-type workplace to highly regimented, hierarchical settings. “What it Means to Work Here” encourages managers to take a hard look at their workplace and create a “signature experience” that will lure in the employees who have the right fit with their corporate culture.
Nohria et al. (2008) make note of the four key emotional drives of human behavior (the need to acquire, bond, comprehend and defend) and how these connect with employee motivation. Erickson and Gratton (2007) remind us that on a more basic level, employee need a work setting where they feel like they belong. Employers often overlook the fact that in the war for talent, the goal is to find “employees who are excited by what they’re doing and the environment they’re operating in” (p. 3).
And so the authors suggest that while we’ve come to think of the interview process as a one-way paradigm where the potential employee is made to prove his or her worthiness, employers should give thought to how they’re encouraging employees to choose them. This goes beyond the choice in office furniture and the size of individual offices or incentive plans. Employers should recognize that their organization has a personality with quirks, benefits and defects. And rather than trying to homogenize their corporate culture to appeal to a wide range of workers, they should focus on trying to appeal to those whose values align with theirs.
Not everyone would want to work at Whole Foods. Their team-based hiring process might appear to some like anarchy, with management staying largely out of the picture. Bonuses are linked to group rather than individual performance. But this is a prime example of a signature work experience, one that puts Whole Foods on Fortune’s list of the best companies to work for.
On the other hand, Trilogy Software puts its new hires through a trial-by-fire process, an exhausting three-month immersion process meant to encourage teamwork and weed out the new hires who need strict supervision. Similarly, The Container Store puts its new hires through around 230 hours of training in their first year of employment (compared to an industry average of around seven). Some candidates will enjoy the rigid supervision and rigorous indoctrination, others won’t.
Consistency is key. Organizations make a mistake in trying to be “cool” when they’re not. A change in décor or the introduction of a gym isn’t going to mask an organization’s basic rhythms. An organization should be more of what it really is, not try to dilute its core traits to appeal to the herd. And they need to consider the generational needs of their potential recruits, recognizing (as Erickson (2010) noted) that certain age groups are more strongly oriented toward work-life balance.
At the end of the day, good organizational function depends on an engaged team, hence the need to find engaged workers who bloom where they’re planted. Not all plants thrive in the same climate, and not all employees have the personalities for all workplace environments. Organizations shouldn’t simply try to scoop up every qualified candidate in sight. They should have the courage of their convictions, accept their workplace assets and deficits and find employees who can flourish under those conditions.
------------------------------------------
Erickson, T. (2010). “The leaders we need now.” Harvard Business Review, pp. 11-15
Erickson, T. and Gratton, L. (2007, March). “What it means to work here.” Harvard Business Review, 2-12.
Nohria, N., Groysberg, B., and Lee, L. (2008). “Employee motivation: A powerful new model. Harvard Business Review, 1-7.
I recently interviewed at a company that is really trying to be cool, or at least mimic the Google's of the world. What was tragic was how obvious it was trying to be something that it wasn't. I can see how it becomes really difficult for them to compete with the other local employers, but at the same time I think that they should focus on recruiting people that fit their culture-mostly because until some of the upper management moves on it won't be changing and selling people on a faux culture is going to result in a lot of turnover. I can see where they are coming from though, I would hate to compete against Adobe down the street for top talent.
ReplyDeleteThe part Nik highlighted resonates with me too. It's all too common for people to mold things into what they are not intended to be. I worked for an organization where the leaders were always reading business books and seemed to change things based on the latest readings. That seemed to be unwise, most of the time.
ReplyDeleteIn the same paragraph, you hit on a key concept that organizations need to follow. Understanding different needs that happen in different generations is key. Facebook motivates its fairly young employee base differently than IBM does its older employee base. But that touches on a different topic - the age of an organization's employees and how that effects an organization's performance in the market.
Timely post, Will. I just read that Marissa Mayer is going to implement some changes at Yahoo, many of which mimic her former employer Google. For example, the cafeteria food will now be free. The article linked mentions that this change should improve the morale among engineers. Do you think small changes like this will have an impact on motivations, or is Yahoo trying to be something its not?
ReplyDeletehttp://mashable.com/2012/07/29/yahoo-free-food-all-hands-meetings/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Mashable+%28Mashable%29
Small things do make a difference, but they can be easily overwhelmed by larger, more vital issues. Free cafeteria food is great, but if an employer is curmudgeonly about benefits or time off or cost of living increases, that food won't go down so well. But yeah, this might be one of those small psychological inducements that sends out positive ripples -- the flap of a butterfly's wings, and all that. It certainly sends the right signal.
DeleteDo you think a dinosaur can ever evolve, or will attempts by old, established companies always be perceived as attempts to be like a perceived hipper company?
ReplyDeleteEveryone's trying to be cool in the new millenium. If Kentucky Fried Chicken can become KFC and turn the grey old man into a hip cartoon figure, what else is possible? Everyone is abbreviating their names and upgrading their logos and looking at their CSR. Yeah, I think old companies can evolve with new or more enlightened leadership. But, like a huge ocean liner, it takes time to turn that ship around.
DeleteGood post Will. You can't be all things to all people but some companies just try too hard. I agree with you, be who you are as a company and find the right people that fit. Everyone wins.
ReplyDeleteWill, I'm very interested in this topic - companies' efforts to be "employers of choice." I'd imagine that this kind of arms race for an attractive culture and "signature experience" becomes more important in growing fields and growing economies, where employees do have more of a choice. When employers are the ones who have more choosing to do, like we see a lot in the current economy, I wonder if this focus manifests itself more in employee retention (and the lower costs associated with stronger retention) versus increased recruiting (and the higher costs of onboarding).
ReplyDeleteFrom this reading the emphasis is certainly on hiring employees who'll make a good fit and avoiding the wasted expense of recruiting and training employees who won't stick around long. I appreciated that the article wasn't offering hints for coming up with a "signature experience" but saying, you've already got one, just clean it up and wear it proudly.
Delete