Aligning and Understanding Reputation within the Organisation

By Chris Bones

Standfirst: In a fast-changing work environment line management is increasingly regarded as a driver for superior performance. Underlying good line management is the ability to foster engagement from employees, who will then help an organisation more effectively achieve its strategic goals. Failure to develop employee engagement may lead to an inability to achieve corporate goals and ultimately damage corporate reputation. This article discusses the mechanism and benefits of seeking an alignment between employee engagement and corporate goals and the future consequences of this for the organisation.

It is a truth universally acknowledged that an organisation in possession of engaged employees must be able to outperform its competition. Universally acknowledged it maybe, but not often achieved. Regardless of whether it is pride, or prejudice, many managers seem incapable of engaging their people sufficiently that they are prepared to ‘go the extra mile' in pursuit of the goals of the organisation.

Without engagement no organisation can hope to align the efforts of its people to the goals it has set itself. Without alignment there is far less hope of successful execution of strategy.

Management by its nature , from Chief Executive downwards, is confronted with a series of dilemmas, and when faced by a dilemma, you have to make a choice. A right choice requires good data, critical analysis, an understanding of goals and strategy and an appreciation of the wider implications for the reputation of the organisation. Disengaged people are far less likely to make right choices and ultimately are far more likely to make wrong choices which could, at the very worst, so badly damage reputation that it may never recover. This is a risk that no modern organisation, voluntary, public or private sector, can ignore.

There is plenty of research out there, which makes the point about engagement and success. Gallup, Sirota and others have all done work which demonstrates the correlation between engagement and superior performance. They have also pinpointed an important distinction between commitment and engagement. Whilst commitment is about the emotional attachment one has to the organisation within which one works, and the pride one has in its achievements, engagement is more; it is the demonstration of discretionary effort to ensure the organisation achieves its goals.

Using this as a starting point, during my time at Cadbury Schweppes we worked on developing a global climate survey which would not just act as a catalyst for change at a local, regional or global level, but would also provide the business with a measure of the degree of commitment and of engagement at each of these levels. The purpose was to focus strategic management attention on what could drive improved business performance and where they might want to focus resources to achieve their goals. The point here was to engage the leadership at every level with what they could do at an organisation level to drive commitment, and line managers at all levels with what they could do with their own people to drive engagement.

Pulling this process together generated two insights, which have influenced my thoughts on this subject matter and impacts upon the role and development of effective leaders and managers.

The first is that there is likely to be a gap between the level of commitment in any organisation and the level of engagement (commitment always being higher than engagement); superior performing organisations being those with smaller gaps. The second is that whilst commitment can be influenced significantly, though not exclusively, by the leadership of an organisation, engagement is primarily, though not exclusively, the outcome of the interaction between an individual employee and their line manager. In Cadbury Schweppes we expressed this second insight in the following way: ‘My line manager is the lens through which I look at the company, and through which the company looks at me.'

This single observation explains in my mind why so many organisations find it difficult to convert commitment into engagement. To do so requires every line manager to be able to impact positively on everyone who works for them. However, what is also true is you cannot have engagement without commitment.

So, what do line managers have to do, effectively? David Sirota, in his book ‘The Enthusiastic Employee' launched earlier this year posits that engagement is driven through three key factors: Equity, Achievement and Camaraderie.

Equity he defines as being treated justly in relation to the basic ‘conditions of employment'. The basic conditions are interpreted as follows: physiological, e.g., having a safe working environment, a balanced workload and reasonably comfortable working conditions; economic, e.g., a reasonable degree of job security, satisfactory compensation and benefits; psychological, e.g., being treated with respect, credible and consistent management and being able to get a fair hearing for complaints.

These ‘conditions of employment' are interesting in that they are pretty basic requirements, and yet, despite that, they can be radically affected by an individual line manager. Whether or not there is a respect for safety, whether one is treated as an adult rather than a child or untrustworthy adolescent, and whether issues are dealt with fairly, is all down to the individual. Even reward is ultimately an individual issue for many, despite the fact that organisations have pay and benefits structures.

Achievement is defined by Sirota as taking pride in one's accomplishments by doing things that matter well, receiving recognition for accomplishments and taking pride in the organisation. Again, some key drivers for line management here are ensuring jobs are stretching and rewarding to do, ensuring sufficient resources exist to do the job properly, including training and recognition of good performance.

Gallup's research might add one further driver here with which I would concur, and that is the proper handling of poor performance. There is nothing more discouraging than working hard yourself and watching others ‘get away with' far less.

Camaraderie is defined by Sirota as having warm, interesting and co-operative relations with others in the workplace. [g1] This may seem for some a rather simplistic measure, but in my view, one of the largest differentiators in the ‘Sunday Times' 100 Top Companies survey is the pride and comfort employees have in the community that is the workplace. It is after all a basic human requirement to want to belong and to be accepted as belonging. Again, like in the other areas, so much of this can be determined by the behaviour and attitudes of the individual line manager.

If you dissect these empirical studies, which cover many tens of thousands of employees, the same conclusion can be drawn; commitment is essential to drive engagement. While commitment is based on working for a company of which one can be proud in terms of its core purpose, ethical stance and its successes, engagement, however, is the driver for superior performance and derives from how individuals are managed.

What makes this observation even more challenging is the very recent research coming out of the Future Work Forum at Henley (Managing Tomorrow's Worker, 2005), the Tomorrow project (Working in the 21st Century, 2005) and studies by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) [g2] (The New Rules of Engagement, 2004), all of which point to some major changes in the nature and management of work.

Firstly, according to the CIPD, there are the basic demographics; in the next 20 years there will be 3% fewer people in the UK workforce, yet the economy is set to grow roughly at the same pace over the next 20 years, as it did in the previous 20, when 48% more people entered the UK workforce. Yet, there are still key skill shortages.

Secondly, according to the Tomorrow project, the nature of work itself will change with a growth in demand for what is being called ‘social capital' skills, ie the ability to work collaboratively. Skills such as ‘listening carefully to colleagues' will become central to work.

Thirdly, according to the Future Work Forum, the dramatic changes in how people work today will accelerate even faster. Today, over 5 million people, almost one fifth of employees, spend some time working from home or on the move. Mobile workers are likely to become one of the fastest growing groups of employees, and the way they are managed will have to change dramatically.

Fourthly, according to the Tomorrow project, the nature of organisations could well change, with innovation being led from the most customer-facing of employees. Managers will therefore no longer be the prime leaders of change, but rather will develop into the role of designing and co-ordinating networks which will allow others to lead where they have expertise. Being a managerial leader will therefore be more about designing, managing and repairing such networks.

Put this against what we already know about engagement, and it can only increase the importance that organisations should give to this issue over many others. With engagement being a big driver of employee loyalty and retention, the demographic squeeze will play badly for those who cannot gain commitment or engagement. Organisations where line managers behave in ways that create an engaged community are those that will find it easier to build ‘social capital' and to work within a less rigid and hierarchical structure. Where your workforce is increasingly mobile, then ensuring engagement is essential, if they are to make the right choices you want them to make, when they are at a distance from the management structures within which they operate.

Ultimately, if the futurists are even half right, we will all have to think far more carefully about the importance of building engagement for successful performance. Why? Simply because it lies at the heart of what we at Henley see as some of the key dilemmas for management in the 21st century.

Management today is far more integrated than it was, even 20 years ago. The advent of end-to-end process thinking, integrated technology, near-global connectivity, flatter structures and other such changes in organisations has driven the challenges of management out of the functional silo. Whilst more of us may still structure around functions rather than processes, increasingly we are required to work across these traditional boundaries to get things done. The rise of the programme and project methodology to make things happen is a direct result of the need to think through stakeholders across and outside of the organisation.

The 21st century manager, regardless of where they are in the organisation and in which sector their organisation lies, is grappling with some sizeable dilemmas. Some of the most significant are associated with the impact of choices made on those who see themselves as having a stake in what is done and how.

The interactions with stakeholders such as consumers, suppliers, customers and communities are significant drivers of performance. So is the reputation that is established with regulators, policy makers and those who influence them in pressure groups. In a world where these stakeholders are just as likely to be thousands of miles away as they are to be next door, ensuring strategic alignment and clear understanding of the rules of doing business are major challenges.

Engaged employees will understand the linkages, will think through the implications, will ask questions of themselves and of others and will ‘go the extra mile' to ensure that the success of the organisation is not compromised. They will do this, because their line managers will have done their jobs effectively. Nothing else you can do will get them there.

Looking at the evidence and thinking about the possibilities for the future leads to the conclusion that arguably at no time in the history of management has the role of the line manager been so critical to successful performance. In the age of digital technology, ironically, line management has overtaken technological advance as the driver with the most significant potential to deliver superior performance.

Ensuring the basics of line management are done well is how to ensure line manager delivery. Investing in them will probably give greater long-term returns than any other investment made today.

Biography

Chris was appointed Principal of Henley Management College in January 2005. He was previously Group Organisation Effectiveness and Development Director for Cadbury Schweppes. In his 22 years in business, Chris has worked for Shell, Diageo (both in GrandMet and Guinness) and Cadbury Schweppes. Chris writes a regular column for HR magazine, and is a regular speaker at international conferences on change, HR strategy and employment branding.

He can be contacted at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it