I’ve always been drawn to the photo above and its caption – The world is changed by our example, not by our opinion. This month a SIGNIFICANT opinion was changed and documented by nearly 200 CEOs on the “purpose of a corporation.”  I applaud this first step.

These CEOs are part of the Business Roundtable, an association of chief executive officers of America’s leading companies.  In total, these CEO members lead companies with more than 15 million employees and more than $7 trillion in annual revenue.  Here’s the radical change:

• Since 1997, this group of corporate leaders has agreed on a principle – "The paramount duty of management and boards of directors is to the corporation’s stockholders." The interest of other stakeholders was "only relevant as a derivative of the duty to stockholders."
  
• Now this influential group is broadening its definition. It suggests ALL stakeholders should be considered in business decisions for the future success of companies, communities, and our country. More specifically:
  • Delivering value to customers.
  • Investing in employees.
  • Dealing fairly and ethically with suppliers.
  • Supporting the communities in which they work.
  • Generating long-term value for shareholders.

Some corporations will immediately point out their core values as evidence they are already “walking the talk.” But here’s a reality check - that’s just the SAY portion of the equation.  The DO (actions and behaviors) is equally if not more important.  Ultimately when the SAY and DO are aligned we usually GET a positive result or perception.  When they are inconsistent and/or misaligned there is increased risk of credibility, trust, character, and reputation.

Consider that it’s easy to SAY:

• “Meet or exceed customer expectations” but what does your organization DO when there are specific delivery or reliability issues? 
• “Deal fairly and ethically with suppliers” but what does your organization DO when significant, non-forecasted demand spikes or drops?     
  
• “Invest in employees” but what does your organization DO when positions are outsourced / streamlined / eliminated?  Does the work get reduced or simply reallocated to already busy staff?    
  

Here are four additional, practical steps I hope that many organizations will consider and then DO.

1. CLARIFY which principle their organization embraces – exclusive or inclusive stakeholder(s).  Then document it and communicate it broadly internally and externally.
2. ACTIVELY MEASURE and proactively address how frequently “stakeholder sweet spots” are hit (where action benefits multiple stakeholders at the same time compared to one exclusively)?
   
3. INCREASE ACCOUNTABILITY and start with leaders.  Accountability should be a personal choice, to proactively influence, take ownership, and deliver desired results. If one or more stakeholders are getting little to no attention, resources, or action – address it. 
4. ASK DIFFERENT QUESTIONS.  Consider questions such as, how many of your current employees:
   1. Need to have a second job (full-time and/or part-time) in order to make ends meet?
      
   2. Qualify for and/or depend on any type of government assistance to survive (food, childcare, healthcare, etc.)?
      
   3. Would voluntarily leave if the right financial package were offered?
      

      
Or questions like:

1. Are we competing with our suppliers for the same limited talent pool?
2. How many suppliers are too dependent on us?
3. How is our benefits strategy impacting local community health care services and costs?
4. How have mergers and acquisitions impacted local community primary and secondary education institutions?

The Business Roundtable’s new policy statement on the “purpose of a corporation” acknowledges each individual company serves its own corporate purpose. What business executives and Board of Directors will step out and truly model Benjamin Franklin’s famous quote - “Well done is better than well said.”  Let’s see what individual businesses will actually SAY but more importantly DO regarding their purpose!

More than eighty years ago, Harvard began what has been called ‘the most comprehensive longitudinal study on adult development’.  And, amazingly the study continues today. Its’ overall conclusion is simple and yet challenging to always achieve – “Good relationships keep us happier and healthier.”

The study makes three major points:

1. Social connections are really good for our health and well-being.
2. It’s the quality not quantity of our close relationships that matters most.
   
3. Good relationships protect both our bodies and brains.

Perhaps that’s why:

• Gallup has asked the question, “I have a best friend at work” in its’ Q12 Employee Survey to millions of employees.
• A ten year research study showed “as much as 35% of the variability in discretionary performance of employees is a result of their manager’s style and behavior.”  
• A Fortune 100 company found that employees who felt their boss showed “genuine interest and concern for their well-being” had engagement levels 30+ percentage points higher than their counterparts.
• Research has also found that our brains work better when we feel positive.  So, important things in business such as creativity, decision-making abilities, and fewer errors (by staying more focused) are impacted.
• People stay where they are happy and also have higher levels of attendance.

Which leads me to a practical question – what can businesses pro-actively do to assist professional, quality relations in the workplace?  I’m suggesting things well beyond the traditional boilerplate statements many organizations make about harassment, diversity, and inclusion.

Below is a quick Internal Quality Relations (IQR) Assessment I use with clients. Please score each question either 3 = very consistent; 2 = inconsistent; or 1 = very inconsistent.

In our organization, internal quality relations (IQRs) are critical to our success so we:

• Highlight these desired behaviors in living our values?
• Review our spans of control (supervisor to employee ratios) to allow time to build quality relations?
• Clarify specific expectations for both leaders and employees?
• Hold everyone accountable for building and maintaining internal quality relations?
• Pro-actively address ‘destructive’ relations in the workplace?
• Monitor key internal relations using different assessment tools?
• Include their importance in our orientation and onboarding?
• Teach everyone effective ways to handle differences of opinion and resolve disagreements?
• Conduct ongoing cross-functional teams to minimize ‘silo thinking and limited relations’?
• Hold networking activities so employees can easily ‘connect’ with others outside their workgroup?
• Select people (new hires and internal promotions) who exhibit strong relationship building skills and get results?
• Factor relationship building behaviors in both recognition and reward activities?

Next Steps. Items rated a “‘3” above - how do you leverage these behaviors?  Items rated “2” or “1”- start by picking one item to proactively start addressing, over the next 30 days, which would significantly impact relationships in your workplace.

When relationships are non-existent, unsure, tense, or broken then many employees will react with unproductive behaviors including:

• Closing off real dialog
• Overreacting to feedback
• Second-guessing decisions
• Resisting change
• Overstepping boundaries
• Manipulating information and situations
• Blaming others          

It’s impossible to keep 100% of employees happy all the time, but enabling sincere, honest, trusting relationships can make a huge competitive difference. Let’s remember that the opposite of relationship includes: division, dispute, dissension, disengagement, and even divorce (leaving). And, in life and work – rules without relationships equals resistance. Can your organization afford the waste of time, money, and human capability created by poor internal relations? Good relationships just don’t happen.  Is it time to be proactive and address?

As 2019 starts, I have seen a number of people post or say something like – “new year and fresh start”. Ideally they are correct BUT realistically little to nothing will change (even with a fresh start) if we all continue to think, feel, and act the same way we did as 2018 concluded. Flipping a calendar page won’t do it – proactively changing behaviors will.

Change is hard. We naturally resist it. We think it’s great for others, but we are okay just the way we are. But, without change there can be no improvement. Without action, energy, discipline, and continued focus the goals and objectives we set for this new year will become even more challenging.  
Here are three key areas where active not passive commitment and effort could make a HUGE difference in 2019:

1. Organizational values. A major challenge with values is few, if any, employees or leaders would debate them. No one would say that integrity isn’t important or customer focus isn’t critical in business. But, here’s the catch – everyone would say their behaviors consistently support the organization’s values but they see others who do not. This is especially true in challenging and/or difficult situations. So why not proactively: 

• Take the guess work out – clarify the most critical values-based behaviors needed to ‘walk the talk’ in 2019. 
  
• Use simple, practical measurement tools and techniques to gage and address behaviors that are perceived to be both in and out of sync with your values. Add credibility by pro-actively addressing perceived out-of-sync behaviors. 
• Ensure there are consistent consequences – both positive and negative – for values. When values are actively lived they must be recognized and rewarded. If they are skipped, avoided, and/or only pulled out when convenient, then they must be proactively addressed and corrected. There can’t be double-standards and inconsistencies.  It simply erodes trust.
• Simulate desired values-based behaviors. We are always better prepared when we practice. Initiate ‘Value Scenarios of the Month’ for all employees and ‘Values Case Studies’ in all leadership development activities.  
  

2. Supervisor/employee relationship. It’s been said, ‘rules without relationships equals resistance.’ The only relationship that may be more important in a business than the company-customer relationship is the manager-employee relationship. Exit-interview research shows the No.1 reason people leave their jobs is their managers. And, research also indicates ‘as much as 35% of the variability in discretionary performance of employees is a result of managerial styles and behaviors.’
Author Maya Angelou once said, “I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.” So, this year how can we make employees feel more:

• Important?
• Genuinely cared for?
• Appreciated?

One of the most powerful ways to build a relationship or tear it down is time. Time always seems in short supply – some are controlled by it – others fight against it. And, time has been described as “the cruelest teacher, because first she gives the test, then teaches the lesson.” Build stronger, genuine relationships this year through improved quality time with employees. 
 
3. Individual Accountability. Mistakes happen. Assumptions and oversights occur. Sometimes people lose focus and are careless. People (employees and leaders) are not perfect. BUT, that doesn’t mean that there can’t be accountability!   

If there is ‘perceived’ blaming, shaming, lecturing, punishing, threatening, and/or humiliating then accountability will be avoided. If failure is considered fatal for individual performance and or career advancement, then risk taking and innovation will suffer. If accountability is only talked about when something goes wrong, people will naturally associate it with something negative.
So consider focusing on the following three accountability actions this year:

• Gain true consensus on what specifically employees are AND are not accountable for.
• Watch for and proactivity address people who are avoiding accountability.
• Embrace a new definition of accountability – it’s a personal choice to proactively influence, take ownership, and deliver desired results.
  

Take a proactive approach to Values, Relationships, and Accountability this year, instead of waiting or seeing if anything happens. Avoid reacting and responding – instead initiate! It could be just the catalyst for change and all those critical improvements needed in 2019.    

Everyone has expectations, it’s human nature.  Expectations can vary from high to low, met to unmet, spoken to unspoken, and reasonable to unreasonable. When expectations are met in life and at work, we experience a level of satisfaction and contentment.  When they are unmet, our emotions can quickly shift to surprise, disappointment, anger, blame, and even fear the expectations will continue to be unmet.  

Employees have expectations of their leaders.  So does the business.  But, there’s a danger when we expect something from leaders and automatically assume it will be fulfilled.  It can lead to performance stagnation or decline, anxiety, disengagement, and even higher turnover.  Are expectations of leaders in your organization -- reasonable or unreasonable?  What are you actively doing to manage these expectations?

Expectations have a powerful impact on trust and respect.  And, trust impacts performance.  For example, in PwC’s 2016 global CEO survey, ‘55% of CEOs thought that a lack of trust was a threat to their organization’s growth.’  Ken Blanchard Companies’ research found that ‘45% of employees said lack of trust in leadership was the biggest issue in work performance.’

Some of you might be thinking ‘but we already have values, leadership competencies, and job descriptions.  Isn’t that enough?’  Maybe – maybe not.

Expectations are simply beliefs that a certain outcome or event will happen (we apply assumptions). But, expectations are not agreement.  That only takes place with consistent execution of an aligned set of repeatable processes that communicate, teach, and reinforce desired outcomes and behaviors.    
Is your current process for managing leadership expectation effective and efficient in:

• Providing straightforwardness and transparency to both leaders and employees?
• Driving more consistent use of standard methods & techniques?
• Providing specifics on timing, frequency, duration, processes to use?
• Creating more consistency regardless of location, experience level, personalities, or level of supervision?
• Driving higher levels of accountability?
• Sustaining momentum regardless of leadership changes?
• Improving both performance and development of leaders?  

Understanding, creating, and managing expectations is critical for sustained success.  Pushing leaders to achieve their best can lead to very positive results. But, unrealistic expectations can backfire and be dangerous.  Is it time for your organization to do a reality check of how it is managing leadership expectations?

One final thought.  It’s widely acknowledged that leadership has a significant impact on performance and competitiveness.  Research has found organizations with the highest quality leaders were 13 times more likely to outperform their competition in bottom-line metrics.  In addition, as much as 35% of the variability in employee discretionary performance is a result of managerial styles and behaviors. When it comes to managing leadership expectations, let’s be respectfully relentless and relentlessly respectful.  It will pay BIG dividends.

Interested in Leadership Expectation best practices (beliefs, plans, and execution)?  If so let’s connect at [email protected] or at 309.634.9137 USA    

(Part 5 of a 5-part Series)

Here are more lessons learned from my eight years helping lead a global Fortune 50 corporation’s employee engagement journey. We leveraged internal best practices by:

1. Using 6 Sigma methodologies to determine statistical correlations.  6 Sigma was being used throughout the corporation to drive improvement. So, we used it too on our engagement journey. Examples included: a) Production supervisors who provided effective performance feedback; made employees feel appreciated; and solicited and valued employees' opinions and ideas had 50 percentage point or more differences in engagement than their counterparts; and b) Supervisors who were on a specific job longer, had lower supervisor to employee ratios, and used team leads had significantly higher engagement.

2. Holding monthly Engagement Exchanges.  These global conference calls had leaders whose division or facility had high engagement and/or significant year over year improve highlight tactical and practical actions they had taken. Each session was kicked off by a high-ranking executive and then passed on to middle and first line managers for more detailed discussions. Each session was recorded for future reference.

3. Hosting an annual Global Engagement Conference.  At first, everyone thought they were different due to the country they operated in, product or service they provided, function they administered, or makeup of staff. But, the conference helped people quickly discover they had much in common on this engagement journey. Networking exploded. New relationships and benchmarking started. And, the mix of people attending the conference shifted from primary HR professionals to HR and Operation professionals.  The agenda was usually 80-90% internal and 10-20% external expertise. We had over 300 people attend these global conferences.

4. Creating and celebrating the Chairman’s Engagement Award. This non-financial recognition and reinforcement was given to individual divisions and facilities for reaching engagement milestones (best-in-class, most improved, etc.). Awards (banners and trophies) were presented to winners, based on size of organization/facility and function they performed (service, marketing, operations, distribution). Extensive ‘internal press’ was given to winners through our corporate media channels. Note: at the time there were only two other Chairman’s awards – one for quality and one for safety.

5. Partnering in research studies with our survey provider.  One study compared some key performance metrics in our independent dealer branches. When we compared the engagement levels of the top 25% of branches in the study to the bottom 25% of branches, we found highly engaged branches: a) out-performed their counterparts by meeting or exceeding quarterly financial targets 40% more often; b) had 60% lower technician related rework; and c) 3 times fewer accidents. This information was then broadly shared.

How are you capturing and leveraging internal best practices to drive and sustain high levels of employee engagement?

I hope this five-part series has given you new ideas and food for thought to support your organization’s employee engagement journey. I am passionate about sharing my experience and consulting with my clients to help drive and sustain their culture and employee engagement. How can I help you? Let’s start a dialog to discuss your efforts and how I might be able to help. Please contact my Business Manager Michele Lucia at [email protected] or 1.214.543.0844 to set up a call.  Always remember – Employee Engagement is a contact sport!     

(Part 4 of a 5-part Series)

Here are more lessons learned from my eight years helping lead a global Fortune 50 corporation’s employee engagement journey. These lessons focus on the formal measurement of employee engagement. We found engagement had to be measured:

1. As a key component of a larger process.  Research strongly indicates that measuring employee opinions ‘without’ any timely feedback on what was said or tangible actions taken, creates morale issues and increased ineffectiveness. In fact, internally we found more than 15 points higher engagement for employees who received timely feedback on survey results versus those who did not and more than 30 points higher engagement when employees saw managers take action on the survey results.

2. As a major contributor NOT sole contributor to performance improvement.  So, we conducted a global Employee Opinion Survey (EOS) that measured key strategic factors including: quality, safety, velocity, change, leadership, and engagement. This allowed us to analyze if statistical relationships and trends existed between key strategic success factors.  Each functional area (safety, quality, etc.) worked with internal and external resources to design high level survey questions that would drive high-level trends and follow-up dialog. Most functional areas asked less than five questions on our EOS.

3. By correlation versus causation.  We debated and researched this issue for several years. At the end, we concluded that when important business measurements (e.g. quality, safety, scrap, rework, attrition) were trending favorably so was engagement. We found the opposite was also true. We also stopped trying to determine if there was an absolute cause and effect with engagement. Instead we worked on creating engaging behaviors to complement our systems, processes, and philosophies of how to do business.

4. Both activities and outcomes.  Our activities were some of the key tactics that helped us achieve our desired outcomes. We tracked and monitored activities such as leaders: opening their survey results on-line; soliciting employees’ reaction and ideas to improve results; creating action plans; and completing action items. But we also measured the correlation between engagement and other key business metrics.  We found many favorable correlations between increased engagement and decreased attrition and absenteeism; improved quality and safety, increased implementation of LEAN principles; and a decline in union grievances.   

5. Consistently, so leaders who were trying to ‘game the measurement system’ had to be coached.  A few of our 7000+ leaders who received survey results tried to shift numbers in a desired direction – even though those numbers may not have reflected reality. Many tactics are mild and overt, but some are not.  Four common ‘gaming’ techniques we found were:

• selective timing of morale-boosting events (just before survey)
• withholding perceived negative news/actions until after the survey
• leading the witness, by asking questions in a manner that suggested the leader’s desired answer before taking the survey 
• trying to influence the survey rating scale. Some leaders told employees “a neutral score was bad” or “only the highest rating score counted”.

How does your employee engagement process ‘measure up’? 

Tomorrow - Lessons learned on Leveraging Success on An Employee Engagement Journey. 

(Part 3 of a 5-part Series)

Here are lessons learned on tackling limiting beliefs (from both leaders and employees) about employee engagement. They are based on my eight years of helping lead a global Fortune 50 corporation’s employee engagement journey. These beliefs created non-productive behaviors and waste. Each had to be pro-actively tackled.   

Here are some false limiting beliefs on engagement we had to address:  Engagement was only:

1. Measurable in a survey.  We taught leaders to stop, look, and listen for everyday things that could indicate if there was engagement or disengagement. For example, do team members consistently arrive right at shift start and leave as soon as the clock strikes quitting time? Are employees applying for jobs outside your team? Do employees physically attend meetings but mentally disconnect by not paying attention or participating?   

2. About money.  Both external research and our own internal research found that there were two major sets of factors for engagement. The first were rational – things like competitive wages and benefits, a safe place to work, tools, and basic training. These had to be done first.  But, then it was critical to move on to the emotional elements which centered on caring, credibility, and trust. Leaders showed these attributes by: soliciting employee ideas; coaching for performance; participating in career discussions; and showing genuine interest in building a professional, positive relationship.  Research by the Corporate Leadership Council summed it up best – “while competitive compensation and benefit packages are crucial to attract and retain talent, other drivers of engagement are far more effective in driving discretionary effort.”

3. Leaders’ responsibility.  We constantly reinforced the fact that there can’t be any spectators in an engaged, high performing organization.  Everyone (executives, leaders, and employees) had an important role to play.  To assist this principle, we encouraged divisions, facilities, and teams to:  a) clarity and set expectations on what engaged and disengaged behavior actually looked like; b) help employees understand what’s in it for them (WIIFT) when they were engaged and c) reinforce engaged behavior and pro-actively coach and address disengaged behaviors.

4. Adding more things to do.  Initially many leaders complained they were already too busy to add more ‘on their plate’.  We used a 1960’s Motown hit – ‘The Way You Do the Things You Do’ – to reinforce it was more about the ‘how’.  For example: Leaders needed to communicate with their employees. So, rebalancing and doing a little more listening and less talking was engaging.  It was also more engaging and productive to effectively delegate more and dump responsibilities less. Even a simple thing like walking from point ‘A’ to point ‘B’ in an office, factory, or distribution center was more engaging to look up, make eye contact, and acknowledge people than bury your head in a paper report or electronic screen.

What limiting beliefs about engagement are delaying your organization from maximizing performance?  What choices need to be re-evaluated?

Tomorrow - Lessons learned on Measurement on An Employee Engagement Journey

(Part 2 of a 5-part Series)

Here are four key lessons learned on change from helping lead a global Fortune 50 corporation’s employee engagement journey. During that eight-year time-frame we went from 1 out of 2 of our 90,000+ employees being engaged to more than 4 out 5. We also saw higher performance and successfully weathered “The Great Recession.”

A true employee engagement journey requires change in:

1. Culture – the accepted or perceived way we do things here.  Change has two major sets of barriers - obstacles and objections. Obstacles are easy to see and identify. People typically articulate obstacles by saying something like, “I can’t make that change because you have not done or provided ______” (fill in the blank). Obstacles are usually tangible things like time, resources, training, documentation, etc. Responsibility is solely placed on another leader or process owner to fix these obstacles before change can proceed.  People try to maintain their current behaviors until the perfect solution and ‘all’ obstacles are eliminated.

Objections, on the other hand, are less overt. They are typically exhibited – not by words but by attitude and behavior that send the strong message – “I don’t want to change the way I currently do it.”  It’s here where personal beliefs, priorities, authority, and behavior are challenged. Objectives are powerful - can wreck change initiatives – and create distractions & execution waste.

Real culture change for employee engagement takes place when organizations pro-actively address those individuals (employees and leaders) who only superficially embrace the desired change. It’s when desired engagement behaviors are no longer optional, nice to do, or only done when it’s convenient. 
      
2. Strategic intent of employee survey.  We decided to play more ‘offense’ and use the employee survey to help determine leading indicators to drive higher performance. In the past, we had played more defense and used the survey to simply identify warning signs or evaluate programs/initiatives. Clear expectations were also set for leaders to open their survey results on-line; share high-level results with employees; solicit feedback; document an action plan; and execute action items in a timely manner. These actions were measured with a simple interim Pulse survey.  

3. Cycle time and content.  We totally redesigned our Employee Opinion Survey (EOS) by using 6 Sigma methodologies and an outside vendor. Our VOC (voice of the customer) told us they wanted changes such as: easier ways to take the survey; faster turnaround of results; ownership of every question; and support tools post survey. Over several years, we transitioned to 100% on-line; high level reports were available in one business day; every question had ownership (functional area or level of leadership); pre-populated individualized on-line PowerPoint presentations were available for each leader; and a dedicated web-based action planning tool was developed and rolled-out.

4. When success is declared.  Sustainable engagement only occurs when four things are RIGHT. Employees and leaders do the right thing (aligned to goals and values), at the right time, the right way (following desired policies, procedures, and processes), for the right reason (commitment compared to compliance).  It was not just hitting a number on the employee survey.

So are your engagement efforts:

• Addressing both obstacles and objections to change needed for high-level employee engagement?
• Playing more offense or defense with your measurement tool and survey content?

• Responding to your internal Voice of the Customer (VOC) needs and wants?
• Focused on sustainable engagement and the four Rights of Engagement?

 
Tomorrow - Lessons learned on Limiting Beliefs on An Employee Engagement Journey.

(Part 1 of a 5-part Series)

Here are five key lessons learned on how to develop a plan for Employee Engagement. These are based on helping lead a global Fortune 50 corporation’s employee engagement efforts for eight years. During that time, we went from 1 out of 2 of our 90,000+ employees being engaged to more than 4 out 5. We also saw higher performance and successfully weathered “The Great Recession.”

Employee engagement must be:

1. Considered strategic.  This allows it to remain a priority to invest time, money, and resources into it even in challenging market conditions. Employee engagement was one of the top tier strategic metrics for our Fortune 50’s People key performance indicator (KPI). We knew we could instruct employees to reach certain goals but not maximize performance without their heads (ideas), hearts (commitment), hands (physical work), and habits (consistency). That’s full engagement!
 
2. Directly aligned with the organization’s values.  The Employee Opinion Survey (EOS) we used to measure engagement directly supported our value of Excellence by supporting the fact that ‘employees had the right to express their good-faith opinions about how we could improve our own performance and the performance of the company.’ And, ‘we actively listen, respond, encourage teamwork and make decisions based on facts and data.’ Since values are the behavioral blueprint for any organization, it’s important that organizations clearly connect the dots between desired organizational values-based behaviors and engagement. 

3. Relentlessly executed.  It required sponsorship and accountable at the highest levels. One of the factors in our CEO’s executive compensation was employee engagement. Our results were also reported to the outside Board of Directors. Engagement was not an event or ‘season’ in our business year; it required deliberate efforts every day.

4. Effectively integrated.  We discovered 12 key people-related processes that informed, taught, and reinforced desired behaviors and had to be both effectively designed, monitored, and then executed by each leader. Too often organizations skip, go out of sequence, or don’t effectively execute these processes. The result is mixed signals, clarity corrosion, and waste. Employee engagement can’t survive as a stand-alone initiative. It’s an outcome of many integrated processes and supporting behaviors.

5. Must be maintained during challenging economic times.  When the Great Recession hit, our company sales dropped by more than 35%. Tough decisions had to be made including: wage freezes, layoffs, permanent cuts, temporary shutdowns, and other austerity measures. But, we didn’t stop our engagement efforts. In fact, our CEO wanted to make sure employees had an opportunity to respectfully express their opinions and feelings during all the dramatic changes, so our EOS was not cut. Our engagement did not decline during this unprecedented period. In fact, employees acknowledged more open communication, visibility of leadership and values-based decisions during this challenging time-frame. This helped us respond and rebound more quickly when business turned around.

Are your employee engagement initiatives:

• A need to do or a want to do? (Strategic value)
  
• Helping drive more specific values-based behaviors? (Alignment)
  
• Driving personal accountability? (Performance requirement)
  
• Not standing alone? (Integration)
  
• Able to be sustained in challenging economic times? (Sustainability)
  

 
Tomorrow – Lessons learned on Change on An Employee Engagement Journey