Tag Archives: people

How did I engage my team, build their confidence and equip them for the tasks ahead?

Posted on by

Just as many managers have done for a long time I am guessing, I was busy doing ‘things’ to promote these goals such as training and encouragement, etc. all of which was beneficial and did reap benefits, yet I could tell there was more potential there that was not being actualised.

The first improvement – and is fairly common – was to have each one of my #Team ‘run’ the morning Toolbox meeting and although this did help in a number of ways, it had become routine, a process they each did and got comfortable with. Yes, they each had their own idiosyncratic way of running the Toolbox meeting yet they still, basically asked the same questions and responded in the same way.

I needed something more to keep their attention and give them focus, something with more individual input, that was slightly different each time, something to stretch them without shutting them down. So, one morning whilst conducting one of our regular training sessions, I realised I could multiply the outcomes by me not doing the training. Sounds counter-productive but there is a logic…

The concept I put in place was for me to provide the training materials, then to have the designated team member for that day present the training (under my supervision) to the whole team. This turned out to be a fantastic opportunity and had more benefits than initially anticipated. How it worked….

Every morning we have a Toolbox meeting and immediately after, a short (up to 15 min) training presentation. Every team member, on a rotational basis, is scheduled to run the morning Toolbox meeting, after they are done, the person running the previous day’s meeting then conducts their training session – I had given them the training material after they had finished their Toolbox, so they had 24 hours to prepare (except when they got a whole weekend to be ready Monday).

It was not long after supervising a couple of these I released I could take it a little further. The improvement was in having the team critique each other’s presentations. Although they are still a little hesitant about this, they do add value and often they can provide very good suggestions. So they learn twice.

The benefits, as I mentioned, where so much more than expected. As a team they are more cohesive, they think more about the bigger picture (being trained in all roles across the function), how they fit in and they suggest improvements – within their own, as well as within other roles. As individuals, they are learning to provide and receive criticism in the right way (yep, more resilience). The regular training not only keeps them engaged and up to date, it is also helping them to read and better understand Policies, SOPs and Work Instructions and how they are written, even to the point of suggesting improvements or updates to these documents.

They are also much more confident in their roles, making informed decisions and asking pertinent questions. They are also becoming confident in themselves; they have a voice and people are listening to what they say.

That said, I am not leaving them to struggle through on their own, I supervise the meetings and the training, I answer their questions, point out improvements and encourage them to try – which to my surprise, they have all done without complaint or hesitation (well maybe a little hesitation).

And now I have more time to do what I do, better.

* Employees – A colleague or an asset, or both.

Posted on by

Over the years I have seen and heard many descriptions or labels for employees some better than others, some have been straight out disparaging.

Today I read an article by Eric Bigelow (Employees are Colleagues, not Assets).  His reference is all about the terminology, calling the employee an “asset”, where an asset is a chattel, an object that is owned).  Eric’s proposal is to have employees called colleagues, equals.  This is not to say all employees carry the same authority within an organisation, rather all employees should be treated with respect. It is from this basic assumption where everyone in an organisation will work for the success of the “team”, working towards the same goal.

Although the term “an asset” sounds pretty innocuous, it is a label and by placing a label on someone they are often treated in a certain way, especially if it is negative. Even worse the label may (and often does) affect the way the person being labelled acts in response. For example, a person labelled as “lazy”, is often treated as if they are always lazy and so attract more attention to their non-performances rather than their achievements and in turn this encourages them to behave in a lazy manner.  Whether the person actually is, or is not lazy, by labelling them as such encourages negative actions – if it really is laziness, then appropriate coaching and retraining needs to be undertaken, labels do not fix problems.

Another article I read in 2012 by Leon Kaye (Time to start valuing human capital as an asset on the balance sheet) says different, but for a different purpose.  As Leon states, employees are usually only shown as a liability on the balance sheet due to the salaries, over due leave, etc.  His argument is that more focus needs to be placed on the asset value of the Human Capital.  Now we have more terminology, Human Capital, this is not the employee rather it is their competency, knowledge and personal attributes that can add value to the company. It is this that must also be listed on the balance sheet.  But as Leon states, this will be very difficult with the current accounting standards and legal practises.

This is where we have our conundrum, how should employees be labelled, if indeed they must. Financially, they are both a liability and an asset. But this is not the person, to ensure this ‘asset’ is valued correctly on the balance sheet this same asset must feel they are part of the organisation and encouraged (even allowed) to perform at their peak and this in turn provides for not calling them an asset.

So it seems both are right, but the label must be used in the right context. When talking in a financial context, it is the skills and attributes (capital) of the employees that are assets (just as salaries and wages are liabilities).  When talking in a HR context, they should be called (not ‘labelled’) colleagues – or maybe just employees.  It is so easy to use the term indiscriminately; then again, everyone should be made aware of the meaning of the terms, including the employees.

Put simply: the employee is a person, a team member. When labelled an asset, it is their skills and abilities that are being referred to, not the person

Definitions:

Employee:  A person who is hired to provide services to a company on a regular basis in exchange for compensation and who does not provide these services as part of an independent business.
Human Resources: the set of individuals who make up the workforce of an organisation, business sector, or economy.
Human Capital: the stock of competencies, knowledge, social and personality attributes, including creativity, embodied in the ability to perform labour so as to produce economic value, i.e.: the set of skills which increase the employee’s value in the marketplace.
Asset: Any item of economic value owned by an individual or corporation, especially that which could be converted to cash. Examples are cash, securities, inventory, real estate, a car, and other property.
Liability: An obligation that legally binds an individual or company to settle a debt.