Employee Engagement And Self-Service Checkouts

Do you know what it says to your employees when you replace them with a machine? It says "I don't trust you".

It also says, your job will soon be irrelevant. You are worthless. I can provide better customer service by removing you.

Many of supermarket chains are are increasing the number of 'fast' self-service checkouts, with the exception of Morrisons who thankfully did some research of their customer base and are removing them. 

At our local supermarket, instead of spending time at the checkout with a member of the Sainsbury's team, I am forced through the agonising self service process of bag opening, mis-scanning, being accused of theft, and waiting for approval for wine and before I can scramble out of the store. 

Sainsbury's have also reduced the number of people on the checkouts (naturally), so the queues build up, and just like animals heading to slaughter we are all forced into the zigzag of the DIY area.....

During a recent visit to McDonalds we found a new form of ordering system. Instead of ordering food from a person, big vertical screens were suspended from the ceiling, into which you can tap your order and it magically appears at the counter five minutes later. No need to talk to anyone if you don't want to. 

In our experience around 90% of the people coming in refused to use them despite staff begging them too. Note to staff - begging people to make you redundant is a bad idea.

Same experience at my local bank - Barclays staff now try and usher me to self service machines rather than spend time at the counters, and there's a move to keep me out of fuel stations by presenting me with a card slot at the fuel pump - the same story is true at my local train station.

Even more bizarre is the appearance of self service coffee machines from Starbucks - which is horrifying when you think that their value proposition is based around the quality of barista and bean. Why would I pay the same for a robot as the qualified barista?

While these are unlikely to appear 'in store' any time soon - the rise of the poor quality franchise outlet and the war for UK service stations between Costa and Starbucks is not helping quality perception.

Starbucks - remember this from 2008, when you shut all your stores in the US for the day?

"We're taking time to perfect our espresso. Great espresso requires practice. That's why we're dedicating ourselves to to honing our craft"

I suspect a little sub-note saying "but you can still use the machine at the gas station" would not fit.....

In common with 44% of the population (according to Retail Week), I prefer interaction with people rather than self service, and although retailers typically preach 'choice' and 'speed' as their reasoning, it transpires that the associated increase in theft is costing far more than the $125k installation costs and the staff salary savings.

These thefts cost retailers over half a billion pounds per year and as a consequence are causing greater investments in multi-sensory, anti-theft spying systems at checkouts, combined with an increase in security guards. 

Now I'm sure that there is short term pain investing in the technology, and the aim is long term savings by removing pesky humans from the equation (or at least reducing the number dramatically) - but none of these companies are thinking deeply enough about their brand.

Wake up. Your people ARE your brand. In an evolving service economy one of the very few things that separates you from the competition are the interactions your customers have with your staff. 

Here's a quote from a really great article by Kate Hilpern on brand value.

"Brand value is measured one brilliant customer experience at a time"

Machines do not give brilliant customer experience.  They provide short term novelty and the illusion of choice, but never long term relationships.

I am REALLY upset that my local Starbucks closed last week, I'll miss the coffee, and the meeting space, but much more than that I'll miss the team of human beings that have looked after me for several years (most are facing redundancy which makes it doubly hard).  

We've all been to 'good' and 'bad' versions of our favourite chains - and greater consistency can be achieved by a machine, but it's never going to ask you about your family and bring you an occasional free coffee, burger or kids toy. It also won't prompt you about a '2 for 1' offer you missed (that might slow the line).

More touch points between companies and their customers is a good thing - but so many companies are now flying in the face of common sense it bewilders me.

Self service machines are the exact opposite of employee engagement, they suppress any positive projection of culture and they reduce your value proposition. 

Stop doing it. Stop it now - think better of your staff, see past the cost and appreciate the enormous value these conversations, relationships and other interactions bring.

And we need to stop using the damn robots. You don't have to use them - in fact you can have great fun (and get even greater customer service) by proclaiming in a loud voice "Why would I use one of those, I like talking to others, and if I keep using a machine, soon all these nice people will be made redundant".

Try it and see. 

PS Great people really do make great companies, and I'm a big fan of both Starbucks and McDonalds for that very reason - read this blog for some more insight.





Follow @CultureEffect Tweet

Do Gender & Age Influence Engagement?

I've had some follow up from my last blog on employee engagement, which raised some interesting questions around gender and age, so this one aims to dispel some of the common myths on the subject using 13,000 sparkling data points (otherwise known as people). 

Those of a 'non data' disposition should start to panic now, or at least skip to the summary at the bottom of the page.

So why bother with all this analysis? Primarily to save money and time - if you're aiming at saving a few million pounds (see here for details), it's nice to do so as efficiently as possible and target the right groups.

Myth 1 - men and women are just as engaged (or disengaged) as each other, everyone is an individual. 

Wrong. Sort of. In the last blog I divided the population into four segments (plus one for the totally disengaged). Mapping the gender distribution gives the chart below.

The 'middle' of the engagement spectrum remains the same. But there's a very large difference at each extreme. A higher population of women occupy the 'highly engaged' quartile with 25% of the female population in that quartile compared to 20% of the men.

Also take note that almost twice as many men reside in the 'disengaged' segment. We'll explore some possible reasons why later on.

Myth 2 - younger people are more engaged than older people.

Ermm.....sorry, no - wrong again. In fact the opposite holds true, the more advanced in years, the more likely you are to be a highly engaged employee.  

If you're looking for the most engaged employees in your company, then you're likely to find them in the 'over 40's' section of the population. Strangely, the 40's group has (marginally) the highest proportion of disengaged employees too, but there is a clear progression of engagement as the population gains maturity.

Myth 3 - everyone has their own way of getting engaged with the company.

No. Not true, in fact there are a few very straightforward and simple options that engage people much faster than you might think, and they are unlikely to be the ones you imagine (I could write a whole new blog on the myth of internal social media).

Here's some simple theory before we go much further. Typically people get engaged in five different ways - most of which are available (and measurable) in one form or another at every company.

There are learning opportunities - these are not limited to formal education programs, but rather learning about why there is a focus on employee engagement. Most companies are trying to improve this, but few communicate effectively what they are doing about it and why with the population.

There are technical opportunities - typically involving multiple interactions with technical infrastructure, such as the intranet.

Social opportunities also exist, voluntary interactions between individuals and groups within a company which may or may not be related to internal social media platforms such as Yammer and Chatter.

Active engagement opportunities involve more visible volunteering or action based giving within the company - going out of the way to give help or recognition to others.

Finally there are Visible factors, people who are recognised by others for their contributions. These are the hardest to measure, but often take the form of awards and recognition by peers and colleagues for their help, expertise or support.

Examining the engagement quartiles for our population shows a very distinct pattern of evolution. 77% of the least engaged group has engaged in some form of learning, but very little else.

Our most engaged group are participating in learning, technical and social engagement, and almost a third are showing active participation in driving the company forward. 13% are being recognised by others.

There is a clear evolution of engagement through each of the five as engagement increases.

The take home from this? Make sure you're communicating effectively why employee engagement is important and what it means to everyone. From that seed, other forms of engagement will grow - but if you can only do one thing, make sure that this one is done well, if only because it is the most accessible to the highest number of people.

________________________________

I would encourage only data geeks to continue from this point in. Remember that we're trying to make more money than the competition by having highly engaged employees - everything else is a waste of time.

So in order to do this right, we need to really look at the population to and see if the quick theories described above work on a more granular level. Get this part right, and planning the next phase of your engagement project becomes more cost effective - because it will work.

In theory then, the most engaged employees are older, and gender makes no difference. Everyone can get on board with an engagement learning program, but very few become the visible evangelists.

The charts below bear that out. We have a couple of slight anomalies, most notably with the over 60's in quartile 3 demonstrating a lack of comfort with the social factors compared to their younger colleagues (that's the yellow 57% block) - and those men in their 20's who refuse to engage socially (the red 1% block on the top line).

The final chart shows the gender balance - and as before, regardless of quartile, the engagement factors remain the same.

The conclusion? Stop worrying about different age groups and genders interacting in different ways. The fact of the matter is (with the exception of men in their 20's) - this particular population all behave in a similar manner.

Many of the tools you need to create better engagement already exist in your company - the technical infrastructure, social enablements and the opportunities to participate are all present, but without creating an environment of understanding even your best efforts are doomed to failure.

Then go and ask a bunch of 20 something males why they don't like the internal social systems.......

Follow @CultureEffect Tweet

Does Your Recruitment Process Suck?

It's nice to see the UK job market improving - many of my friends who have been 'on sabbatical' for a year or so are now finding their way back into permanent employment, but some of the stories they tell about recruitment processes make me want to cry.

Most popular experience - submitting an application, following up and then hearing nothing back. Nada. Not so much as a short 'You're rubbish and we don't like the font you used' email.

In second place - having a face to face interview (in person or on Skype) and hearing nothing back. Given that at this point they have typically met some of the people from the company too - the offence and level of rudeness is even more exaggerated.

Third on the list - repeated contact telling people to 'just wait' while decisions are made, other candidates are interviewed or organisation changes are taking place. In other words, "Our time is valuable, yours isn't, we're trying to find someone better, but if we don't we might just hire you."

I could carry on with these - from systems that eliminate candidates who don't enter their expected salary in the right ballpark, to skills not counting if they have been learned in other industries (I especially enjoyed the tale of a large financial institution looking for a full time employee engagement and culture specialist insisting that they would only interview candidates from other banks......)

Ask yourself one question. What impression of these companies are people left with? What do you think they tell their friends? How likely is it that their brand will be improved from these interactions? 

Then there's the personal level. In several of the cases above, job offers were eventually extended. How valued would you feel as an employee walking through the door on day one after having been treated this way (if indeed the offer was accepted)?

Contrast this to a conversation I had a few weeks ago on a flight back from Barcelona. 

Several members of the executive team of a very well known global sportswear company were sat around me, and I got talking to their new head of UK Sales & Marketing. He was four weeks into the role - and still in 'training'.

During the recruitment process he had interviewed with a number of people from the company. Finally he sat down with the Managing Director for a discussion. 

Within 24 hours he was offered the job.

Despite all the efforts of his previous employer to retain him, he chose to move on. And why wouldn't he? They wanted him NOW. Here was a company that felt confident enough in his abilities to extend an immediate offer. 

A company that made fast decisions, that was passionate about their products, and finding the right people. Above all else, one where taking this 'risk' was acceptable, and where it was part of the company culture to be enthusiastic and passionate about everything - including recruitment.

The passion for his new employer, their product and ethos was palpable. It rubbed off on me, and although my family have all been big fans for years, we've spent some money since on refreshing our supply......

I spent some time with Zappos a few years ago. Early on, the HR team realised that recruitment was not all about finding the right people for the company - it was also about leaving those 'rejected' from the process with a good feeling about Zappos. So they started to recommend other companies that may be a better  'fit' to candidates that didn't quite make it - using experience and a library of culture data.

The company 'powered by service' extends that to everyone that touches them. Because it's good for business, and it's a nice thing to do. 

So why not take some time today to review how well you do with the 'recruitment experience' in your company? You may not feel it's worth the effort to treat people well - but can you really afford not to in this age of social media and brand awareness?

What does your recruitment process say about you as a company?

Follow @CultureEffect Tweet

Lego Movie Culture Lessons

I love Lego, so the fact that we enjoyed the movie so much was hardly a shock. Although one of the occupational hazards of working with organisational culture is looking at how things could be improved or replicated (even in fictional worlds)......

In the opening scene of the film we are introduced to the bad guy, Lord Business, who divides the all the Lego worlds and locks them away for eight and a half years.

President (Lord) Business wants to glue everything down, stop it moving, make it perfect and prevent changes and chaos. He even creates micro-managers and robots to help him restore order and process. 

He makes himself bigger before meetings, shouts a lot, doesn't listen, sends his chair kicking minion to terrorise the protagonists, and misunderstands things (especially new stuff he hasn't encountered before).

Then near the end of the movie, we see the the 'real world view' as Dad marches down into the basement to prevent his son playing with the perfect Lego models. He stops him creating new models, acting out new stories and building more fun. He wants his perfect models in their perfect dioramas to remain untouched and unchanged forever.

(I would add that I've come close to gluing some models together in the past, just to stop the kids breaking them. I received several jabs in the ribs from my Wife during the film).

What happens when Dad finally looks at the work he hasn't micromanaged? He sees some pretty impressive stuff - much more exciting than the original designs. 

____________________________

Hmmmmm

I've seen managers (and entire companies) with the same problems.

The bad guy eventually fails because of the overwhelming passion of the heroes to make things different. No amount of chair kicking, glue spraying, control freak megalomania stops the inevitable march of progress.

Sometimes we all need to face up to the fact that the people you manage (or parent in this case) know more than you do, and getting them engaged will create the innovation you need to succeed and grow.

In the real world Lego already know this - they set the gold standard for engagement with their Japanese partner CUUSOO (which charmingly translates to 'wish something into existence'). 

When enough people vote for a community model, then Lego make it. Add this to their incredible design and marketing team and you find huge levels of constructive competition keeping a largely unchanged concept from 1958 at the leading edge of the toy market.

So please, take some advice.

If you only do one thing today, then listen to someones idea. Listen properly. Don't interrupt, thank them when they're done, then engage in some dialogue with them about it.

Everyone at your company has good ideas. Some of them may improve process, some may lead to new products. One of them is likely to be the thing that sets you apart from your competition and lets you retire early.

It's a good idea to build an engaged, healthy culture in your company if you want to survive. Doing that starts with you, and it starts today.

PS Don't kick chairs around. This happens a lot in the movie, and a lot in real life too (trust me on this, I've seen it happen, and I've seen it many, many times in employee surveys). It makes you look like an ass and undermines your authority. If you have to throw your toys out of the pram to get your message across you need to work on your dialogue skills.

Follow @CultureEffect Tweet

It's Your Fault When Communication Fails

One of the many great things about working with culture is that no two days are the same, and you never quite know where inspiration may come from next.

Last week I visited a bathroom at a clients office, and on the door was a big brightly coloured panel with some cryptic acronyms together with the word "shelter".

Back outside, I asked what the sign meant - and nobody seemed to know. So I asked at the reception desk - they didn't know either. Finally, I asked a security guard,  and with a slightly uncomfortable look he explained to me that in the event of any form of disaster - these were the locations that people were meant to run to.

The building in question has a glass atrium, open areas, and is wonderfully designed. The bathrooms were specifically architected in the strongest areas of the building to act as shelters should anything happen.

Sounds great. I'd hope that all employers put as much thought into employee safety as this particular company. Except of course that nobody knew about it. Or at least none of the group I was with - which posed several questions for me.

Firstly - how much of the communication within that building was lost? I'm pretty sure I would open an email that said "In case of disaster......" - and I'm sure that such communications were in place, or it's part of the induction process, or maybe there are too many emails, or.....<insert your own excuse here>. Whatever the reason -  is anyone listening to the corporate voice?

Which is the core of many cultural problems in companies. 

So who is to blame? Why not blame the communications group? Next to HR, I find they are typically the most maligned of internal resources. Too much comms, not enough. Too many emails. Not enough information. I've heard them all. Never mind that they are an advisory resource - and that everyone at the company typically wants to tell everyone else everything.

Or maybe it's the CEO's fault. Let's face it, people DO tend to read emails from the top - so maybe she should have sent the email about the shelters.

But the reality is that it's almost certainly your fault when things are not communicated. Whatever level of the company you are at - it's you. Where's your curiosity? Where's the wish to learn? The drive to discover? 

I wanted to know what the sign meant. Then I told everyone. It was a personal message from someone who clearly cared enough to pass it on.

Many culture issues are often connected to a lack of engagement and an individual expectation of being spoon fed information.

The solution? Very few have the commitment to try it. Stop with active communications. Active communication leads to passive recipients. Turn off the tap (or faucet if you're American). You'll soon see who the most engaged employees in the company are - and engagement WILL increase - I promise. 

Atos are the headline act for experimenting with this - read about their zero email here in the FT.

Focus instead on making information accessible - whatever works best in your environment. It could be using Yammer or Chatter, it could be a pseudo Facebook page, posters in the halls (or in the bathrooms). But be sure to measure that engagement as you go - don't trust to luck. Take a look here on my website for some measurement ideas...

Force feeding information reduces the expectation of people to learn. If you're not learning, you're not growing, and if you're not promoting a culture of continuous learning, you're falling behind more progressive (and frankly better) companies. 

Follow @CultureEffect Tweet

Zombie Engagement Strategies Don't Work

I have four children, so the chances of my Wife and I watching a grown-up movie are slim at best - so I take the opportunity to catch up on films when I fly.

On the way back from NY recently, I watched "Warm Bodies" a romantic comedy with zombies (I'm not kidding). Take a look at the first four minutes - at around 1:20 there's a scene where our protagonist imagines life before the apocalypse. (Click here to jump to it, or watch the clip).

The more I look around the real world, the more this clip makes me laugh. We spend so much time stuck in our virtual worlds that we can forget about the real people around us.

Engagement strategies can feel like this too, I've seen many companies draw up plans to improve employee engagement by focusing entirely on the electronic aspects of communication, and forget the human interaction element.

Here's a simplified plan that draws in some common elements:

• Create an intranet site for employees that represents 'their voice'
• Start a recognition program
• Make some cool videos about how engagement helps
• Promote the statistical benefits of engagement
• Send regular emails about the program
• Seek regular feedback

All of these are worthy things, but they all require an individual to make the effort to seek out the information and work with it. The problem is - those that do are probably your most engaged employees already.

Take a look at the chart below - this shows a company of 13,500 employees and their level of engagement.

Passive engagement is determined by opting in to certain activities, active involves making a contribution. This is the picture 12 months into an engagement program. Only 5% of the population are in the top two quartiles of engagement, but the majority of that engagement is active.

Also note the 9.9% who are not demonstrating any engagement at all - this is not uncommon, and having the expectation that all employees will be engaged in all things is unrealistic - it doesn't make them bad people, extensive interviews revealed that these are folks who are simply happy to do their work well, content in their role.

There is an underlying story here though, and it's that of human engagement. The effect that the top 5% had on the employee population here was astounding. These were the people who picked up the phone, walked around the office, created the atmosphere for change and generally became cheerleaders for increased engagement.

Looking at their influence on a geographic and organisational basis proved their value beyond all doubt.

So I have three things to leave you with today.

Number 1 - what are YOU personally doing to promote engagement in those around you? Enthusiasm is contagious, and can be expressed in electronic form - but is often much better expressed through direct interaction with the people you work with.

Number 2 - what kind of active engagements are you promoting? 'Change Jams',  interactive message boards and group events are all good places to start - but make sure that actions are taken based on the feedback you get.

Number 3 - are you measuring engagement? If not, then you are relying on hearsay and instinct to improve things - and whilst instinct and passion play a part in this, without hard data you are working in the dark. It's not difficult to do, and it doesn't cost a lot.

If you're struggling with measurement, then please reach out directly to me at mark.ellis@culturetransform.com or at CultureTransform.com , and I'll do the best I can to help.

Follow @CultureEffect Tweet