News Archives

Benefit programs play a pivotal role in attracting and retaining talent – but how can you ensure that your benefits programs meet the diverse needs of employees of different ages?

Currently, there are four different generations in the workforce: so what does each generation value most?

Boomers:

Born between 1946 – 1964, the boomers are well into their midlife. And yet, it is no secret that a lot of mature workers are still active, with 25% of the US workforce being comprised of those aged 58 and above. This is largely due to the fact that people are living longer and healthier lives, and so are better able to work to retirement and beyond.

Therefore, it may come as no surprise that the benefits these people tend to value most are health related – health insurance, dental and vision coverage, as well as retirement plans and discounts on health services (such as chiropractic care).

Generation X:

This generation make up the highest percentage of executive roles, as well as being typically very skilled and specialized. While they have most likely paid off any student debts, they usually have families to support financially and emotionally, and so the benefits they value the most reflect this.

Gen Xers look for 401K plans with matching benefits, opportunities for advancement and opportunities for work-life balance. This would make the offering of increased time off or sabbatical particularly attractive to this generation. As well as being parents and supporting their young-adult children, this generation are likely to have unpaid caring duties towards their elderly parents, and so having specific benefits to help with this caregiving would also be incredibly attractive to this group.

Millennials:

Millennials are those born between 1981 – 1995, and currently make up the majority of the US workforce, at 35%. This group of people are starting to grow their families, pay back student loans and purchase property, and so the benefits they tend to value the most are paid time off, flexible spending for dependent care and health, flexible working schedules, and financial advice.

A survey found that among millennials who already had children, 72% of them cited that the lack of affordable childcare was a barrier to meeting their career goals. When paired with student loan debts and the rising prices of housing, basing your benefit programs around financial assistance in these areas will be extremely enticing to this generation of the workforce.

Generation Z:

The most recent influx into the workforce, Gen Z currently only make up 5% of it in the US, but the number is quickly rising. The youngest generation are bringing with them a new attitude towards working life, and prioritize boundaries and balance so that they can indulge in a personal life and avoid physical and mental burnout from being overworked, as seen from the quiet quitting phenomenon.

They value many similar benefits to millennials – paid time off, student loan assistance, flexible working options – but are also the most socially progressive of any generation. A lot of Gen Z candidates are looking for what mental health support services companies are offering, as well as how diverse and inclusive they are, as this reflects the type of culture they will be working in.

Even though different generations want different things, there are ways of appealing to them all through your benefit programs. One way of approaching this is offering a standardized set that considers a key element from each, therefore making you more attractive as an employer to a larger population of workers.

Another way you could do this is by working with your HR team to design benefit programs to support and meet your people in various seasons of life. There are strategic ways you can vary your benefit plan offerings, while managing your benefit compliance responsibilities.

With the cost-of-living crisis happening in real time, understanding the needs of the workforce is paramount to finding, securing, and retaining the right talent for your business. So, if you need detailed guidance on how to design strong, appealing benefit programs, get in touch with us here or with me directly at victoria.sprenger@orgshakers.com

HR teams can find themselves in a crossfire between employer and employee. At first blush, the HR department recruits, enables, and fosters employee growth, and so would appear as a service for the people. And yet, contrary to this, it is those in the higher leadership ranks who regularly seek HR counsel and guidance and ultimately hire and pay these HR professionals.

How does HR effectively balance the services it offers to the employer and the employees?

Balance can be difficult to determine and perceived differently in varying contexts. For example, in a business where there is a strong union environment, would it make sense for HR to provide additional support to managers and leadership in order to level the playing field, so to speak? If so, would employees feel limited or disinclined to express issues they have to HR?

A workforce perception that HR teams are only there to help “higher up” already exists, with one study finding that 70% of employees do not trust their personnel department. If we look at it from this perspective, HR teams need to seek ways they can recalibrate the balance so employees trust in HR’s neutrality and feel comfortable communicating their issues. A fundamental aspect of Human Resources is to be a connection between management and staff, and if they are being iced out by employees – who make up the majority of any company – then they will not be able to effectively enhance the workforce experience or workplace culture. Conversely, managers and leadership must also be able to trust HR’s neutrality and advice, viewing them as a strategic partner in meeting company goals and objectives.

Is there a ‘default’ view HR professionals can take when caught in the middle?

Simply put, their job is to help guide leaders on how they can optimize their company through their staff while also supporting workforce health, growth, and development. In this sense, HR teams are always advocating for the people, because those same people make up the foundation that buttresses managers, leadership, and business outcomes.

With the contemporary workforce undergoing a great rebirth of their outlook on work and what they seek to gain from it, more people want to work in a person-centric environment. A 2022 report by Gallup found 61% of respondents said greater work-life balance and better personal wellbeing was a very important consideration when looking for a new job. Both attributes are key HR services, and it could be argued the true balance HR should seek leans more in favor of employees. By being consciously people-centric, this could ultimately benefit the employer through an engaged, energized, and dedicated workforce.

The reality is, there can be no one set approach. Companies vary in their needs and organizational dynamics, and so HR must seek to calibrate the unique balance for each company, department, division, team, or individual with whom they work.

If you need help navigating that journey, OrgShakers has a breadth of experience across all different types of organizations – whether that be public, private, global, unionized, or non-unionized. Head over to our contact page to get in touch, or you can email me directly at amanda@orgshakers.com

I found myself smiling recently as my lovely mum, Nora – who is 84 – declared her absolute exasperation that her doctor had not prescribed her a medication she thought she absolutely should have.

So, why was I smiling?

Her request had been for hormone replacement therapy – HRT!

As I poured us both a cup of tea, I was really intrigued as to how the conversation had gone.

She shared with her doctor that I was on HRT and that I had been free of joint pain and other menopause-related symptoms. Although I had been sceptical to try it, I now advocated it and as a result she thought she would like it too. He asked why she felt the need to try it now and she said: “Because I want to feel at my best for as long as I can”.

His response to her really warmed me. “You are a beautiful woman. You are 84. And you are a perfect example of a post-menopausal woman in the springtime of her life. You need sun, and smiles, and daily doses of whatever it is you are already doing.”

My mum was of a generation that did not talk about the menopause through both stigma and shame and never complained when the obvious symptoms presented themselves.

They just ‘got on with it’.

I love that mum is full of energy and life and no longer ashamed to talk about the personal stuff.

So, as we mark World Menopause Day, it is a missed opportunity if we ‘just get on with it’. Today should be a celebration – an opportunity to recognise we are in the springtime of our lives!

Because there is more support than ever for us to open up about how the change in our bodies impact our physical, biological, and psychological state.

I have been an Ambassador, an Ally and – so I have been told – very loud in sharing the knowledge and insights I have on the topic across boardrooms and organizations in every sector. The menopause does not discriminate, 100% of females will face it and my hope is that they will embrace it.

As an organisation, OrgShakers have taken to the topic of midlife very seriously as there is a commercial benefit to every business for doing so.

For the first time in history, one third of the global workforce is over 50! That alone is staggering when you think of the paradigm shift in thinking for the policies, processes and programs that need to support and enhance everyone to be at their best.

If you need some help on starting to support those undergoing these midlife changes at work, here are five things you can do as a leader:

Develop and/or review existing policies – remembering that there is no one-size-fits-all approach as every person’s journey with menopause is unique
Train your line managers in understanding what menopause is and how to recognise and support it
Raise awareness – this can be done through a variety of means, whether that be having informative flyers/posters, organising educational talks/seminars, or through the use of an internal intranet forum.
Introduce a menopause/midlife Ambassador
Foster an inclusion mindset – this can only flourish in a workplace culture that is open, honest and makes people feel comfortable to share and seek help

And please do get in contact with me at therese@orgshakers.com to keep the conversation alive.

The recent Wagestream Cost of Living Report 2022 has found that close to all UK employees (96%) have seen their living costs rise and, as a result, 70% now worry more about money.

Three quarters (76%) of those worrying more have seen their mental health decline. Unsurprisingly, therefore, one in five (19%) of those who have asked their employer for support in the last three months asked for help with mental health.

In this podcast, Chris and Adam Morris speak to OrgShakers’ Therese Procter about the report and what businesses can do to help their employees through these difficult times.

You can access the podcast by clicking on the image below:

‘Quiet quitting’ has been a buzzword in the corporate world recently – staff members are taking back their personal lives by setting boundaries on how much extra effort they put into their work. This has sparked many conversations as to why employees felt the need to quietly quit in the first place, and one such reason may be due to the rise of ‘quiet firing’.

The second phrase to be logged in the ‘quiet –’ saga, quiet firing shifts the focus to a managerial perspective, and refers to those leaders who are assigning some members of staff menial tasks, setting unrealistic expectations, and consistently denying them time off work. Essentially, instead of communicating with these employees to help them improve, they are quietly pushing them away until they finally decide to leave of their own accord.

While some leaders may be doing this consciously, this new phenomenon does bring into question whether managers who are being inattentive are at risk of unknowingly quietly firing their staff.

Being in a leadership role means you may not have a lot of time to spare, but a crucial part of being a manager is finding a balance between being attentive to those above and below you. Members of your team may feel they are being neglected due to a lack of direct engagement with them, and this can be perceived as quiet firing and can push people towards leaving. This is reinforced by Gallup’s report which found that 70% of the variance in team engagement is determined solely by the manager. In other words, a manager has the largest effect on how engaged their employees are at work.

This highlights the importance of finding that time to offer clear and consistent feedback. Leaders who are essentially giving up on those workers who they deem as underperforming, instead of taking the time to tell them how to improve, are failing their staff.

Underperformance is a sign to managers that they are not being as attentive as necessary. The relationship between leader and worker needs to be nourished, and this nourishment comes from communication – through the implementation of a regular feedback session – and from clarity, as only about half of workers actually know what is expected of them.

Communication and clarity are especially important with the rise of hybrid and remote working models. Research shows that employees working from home often receive less performance feedback for their good work than those in the office, and this can be simply due to the fact that remote working removes the chance of bumping into one another. Gone are the days of grabbing someone for a quick chat or catching up by the water cooler. All these little opportunities for micro-feedback sessions are much harder to achieve through Zoom or Teams, as now, a formal effort has to be made to speak to colleagues.

Implementing ways of giving regular feedback to employees who work remotely will help mitigate the risk of quietly firing staff. On top of this, it helps enhance your culture – in the office and digitally – to be open and approachable, which can ultimately better staff engagement and improve the quality and quantity of their output.

If you need guidance on how to avoid falling into the trap of quiet firing, you can get in touch with us here.

Simon was 21 years old when he met his girlfriend, and their relationship quickly became serious; the pair had moved in together in a matter of weeks. Eighteen months later, Simon lost his life to this same girl, who his family and work later discovered had been abusing him physically, emotionally, and financially for the entire duration of their relationship. Yet, due to the attached stigma of a man being abused by a woman, Simon did not seek help – and because many external bodies, such as his workplace, have only been trained to spot signs of domestic abuse in women, no one was able to direct Simon to the help he needed.

Simon’s workplace, like all companies, have a responsibility to offer support and guidance when they are led to believe or made aware of a member of staff who is experiencing domestic abuse. Whether it be physical, psychological or a mix of both, managers should be trained on how to respond to these appropriately.

However, many organizations are failing to address the intersectionality of domestic abuse through their support strategies.

For one thing, lockdown brought with it a significant spike in domestic violence reports, with MSI Reproductive Choices finding a 33% increase. Refuge also released new figures which found that calls to their domestic abuse helpline had increased during lockdown by 61%. Despite leaving the pandemic behind, the hybrid and remote working models are more popular than ever, and so the increased proximity risk for domestic abuse to occur is still very much present.

Employers must begin to look at ways of updating their support strategies to keep up with these changing working environments. One way that businesses can start to do this is by training staff to be aware of a Violence at Home Signal for Help. This would be teaching a covert hand signal that can be made over a video call to make their colleagues aware that they are in danger but are unable to verbally say so.

But this is only the first step. Companies need to start shifting their perception of domestic abuse as being something that only affects heterosexual women. Most strategies will be tailored to the experiences of straight women, as this is the group of people who statistically suffer the most. But a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach can mean employers fail to recognise and respond to those who fall into different groups.

According to the Crime Survey of England and Wales, 27.6% of women have experienced domestic abuse behaviors compared with 13.8% of men. However, many men do not report domestic abuse due to perceived embarrassment and the reluctance to even admit to themselves that they are victims. As a result, the number of men suffering could be much higher.

Similarly, the experiences of people from the LGBTQ+ community will vary significantly from those of straight men and women with around 25% of LGBTQ+ people suffering violent or threatening relationships.

For those in queer relationships, there are a number of unique attributes in the way they are abused. For example, some people are threatened with having their sexual orientation ‘outed’ to people who they have not shared it with. As well as this, many queer people will believe their sexuality or gender identity is the reason why they are being abused, which fuels feelings of internalised homo/bi/transphobia.

Employers must continue to educate themselves around the diversity of domestic abuse. Knowing how it can affect different people, as well as being able to recognise the varying signs, will allow the company to be able to support their employees promptly, and avoid tragic cases like Simon’s.

Those suffering can have noticeable issues in performance, as well as higher absenteeism, which eventually leads to reduced productivity and lower output. And just because domestic abuse is something that happens in the home, does not mean it won’t follow people into the office – up to 75% of employed victims are harassed by their abusers while at work, through repeated calls and texts and visits to the workplace.

Businesses that begin updating their strategies will be able to help those that are suffering, as well as mitigate the effects that domestic violence can have on work performance. Fostering a culture of openness will make it easier for staff to approach leaders with these issues. And when approached, it is important to avoid gendered language when asking questions – substitute ‘boyfriend/girlfriend’ for ‘your partner’ – so to avoid making someone potentially uncomfortable.

Organizations should also be able to direct men and LGBTQ+ people to appropriate helplines. Men’s Advice Line is dedicated to helping male victims, while GALOP provides a national LGBTQ+ domestic abuse helpline.

If you need guidance on how to develop your domestic abuse strategies, please get in touch with me at therese@orgshakers.com

The recent rise of what is apparently called ‘quiet quitting’ has sparked the need for organizations to re-examine the modern psychological contract between employer and employee.

‘Quiet quitting’, in terms of working with reduced motivation, has always existed since work first began, and usually resulted in the individual leaving to find a new role that inspired them. However, working less hard while looking for a new role is not the same as consciously setting boundaries around your work in order to have a life – which is what I believe the new ‘phenomenon’ actually represents.

Employers risk falling into the trap of conflating demotivated employees – who are in the process of leaving – with those who love their work but are setting boundaries. And what strikes me the most is that ‘quiet quitting’ is a derogative term which is being used to describe, in many cases, employees doing the job that they were hired to do, for the amount of time they were hired to do it.

It is the younger workers who have been described as igniting this quiet revolution in the workplace, opting to operate broadly within the boundaries of their job and not expanding beyond it if they so choose. If they work certain agreed hours, then they do not expect to be contacted before or after those hours except in exceptional circumstances. If they are given a project beyond their job title, they may choose to politely decline if they do not have the capacity or if they were not contracted to do so.

They value time to live their lives, as well as do their work, and this does not mean they are any less dedicated, talented or that their output is reduced. No one is ‘quitting’ and they should not be accused of such!

They are rejecting the ‘always on’ culture that they have seen work so badly for their parents and older work colleagues. The additional work hours that once were paid as overtime became gradually seen as a badge of honour for the ‘workaholic’, and an expectation by employers as something you had to do if you wanted to ‘get on’ and reach the senior echelons of an organisation. Now with remote working making it possible to work 24/7, working way in excess of your contracted hours has become an expectation that has generated a tidal wave of stress-related mental health issues.

So, why did young people feel the need to push back against the relentless tide of work coming their way?

For one thing, people are working an increasing number of unpaid hours. A global study by ADP Research found that 1 in 10 people work at least 20 extra hours a week unpaid. To add context, they are often working for global organisations which are making millions in profit to give to the shareholders, yet their workers are ‘donating’ swathes of their time for free. Hours being ‘donated’ to organisations by their workers had also doubled in North America, while in the UK, the number of unpaid hours worked in 2021 was equivalent to £27 billion.

The idea of an unpaid overtime-work-ethic has arisen from a toxic mindset that equates commitment and effectiveness with working very long hours and never saying ‘no’. The younger generation are entering into a corporate world with some leaders who believe that giving your ‘all’ to a job (i.e., prioritising your work above everything else in your life including family, friends, hobbies and health) is a good way of measuring productivity and passion.

I believe it is the responsibility of leaders to manage their people resources such that they have sufficient people to deliver what they expect to deliver, not the ‘do more work with less people’ attitude that seems to prevail. Managers also need to support individuals and role model what it means to set boundaries, as well as being alert to when enough is enough.

Knowledge and awareness of the huge impact of overwork and stress on mental and physical health was scarce for previous generations, but we are now much better informed and amongst Gen Z, the stigma attached to discussing wellbeing has largely decreased. And yet, a generation that are more aware of what it means to have a balanced, brain-healthy lifestyle and want to work in a high quality, output-measured way, are having to operate within an outdated working culture.

And so ‘quiet quitting’ was born. Originally starting as a movement in China, ‘quiet quitting’ is a phrase used to describe workers putting in reasonable boundaries between their work and their home time, and rejecting the idea that work has to take over your life. Chinese companies responded by trying to persuade workers that to ‘struggle’ was to achieve a happy life. Younger workers were not convinced.

This is a wake-up call to companies and leaders everywhere, that individuals are deciding that their job cannot consume their entire life. There is both a strong moral and business case for this message needing to be heard:

Morally, companies should not come to rely on the additional cashflow produced through its workers not being paid for the time they are working. This is a fundamental breaking of the work/payment psychological contract. Good resource management does not mean expecting people to work 12 hours but paying them for 8 hours. This ‘discretionary effort’ ethos has got so out of hand that it is no longer the badge of a hardworking and ambitious person, but rather an expectation of all, which is creating a mental health crisis.

In business terms, tired people create tired ideas. Businesses need to recognise that, with the rise of AI taking on repetitive tasks, the next generation of workers will be hired and valued for the quality of their ideas, their innovations, and their thinking. Therefore, we need to work in a way that fosters the best of this thinking. Businesses need to start placing real value on creating environments of mental wellness and brain health, so that they can optimize the best brains and gain a competitive advantage. This is forward-thinking and makes great business sense.

The first steps towards this can be seen in the UK, as the trial for a 4-day working week commenced amongst participating organizations. This was in response to a successful trial in Japan, which found a 40% boost in productivity due to improved wellbeing. A shorter working week acknowledges that a person’s happiness is just as important as their job – having an extra day to indulge in one’s personal life can make all the difference to one’s mental health.

However, there is a fine line to this. As pointed out in the above citation, attempting to cram five days’ worth of work into four can lead to increased feelings of stress and burnout. If companies are shortening the week, they also have a responsibility to decrease the load. It is about playing the long game – productivity will go up despite the loss of a working day because staff will be more rested and motivated. As well as this, their brains will be able to work consistently at an optimal level, creating higher quality output, because they will feel less pressure and have more time to rest.

Henry Ford proved this in 1914 when he upped his workers’ wages and reduced their hours, as well as reducing the work week from 6 to 5 days. Described as a stroke of brilliance, he built a sense of loyalty and pride in his workers and as a result actually boosted productivity.

His son Edsel Ford said, “we believe that in order to live properly every man should have more time to spend with his family”. This seems to have been forgotten in 2022.

The 4-day week suggestion is only one solution. For most businesses currently operating within a five-day working week, it is time to think about shifting the focus from hours being put in, to the work that is being generated. We need to be output-focused whilst being utterly realistic about what any human being can be expected to achieve in the timeframe needed for the desired output.

Neuroscience already informs us what we need to do in order to create optimal brain function. Why do businesses not draw on this wealth of knowledge and create working practices that support this?

Humans are not computers, we cannot operate for hours on end without a marked drop off in our cognitive abilities, as well as a huge decline in our thinking, decision-making and creativity. In the end, overwork and stress can deeply damage mental and physical health, so it is no wonder that younger workers are rejecting this.

As a leader you have the responsibility to hire well, train well and trust your people to do their jobs. Focus on output and quality, whilst being realistic about what a human being can achieve, and resource effectively whilst supporting them to find the best pattern of working to suit their cognitive needs. A study by Harvard Business Review found that managers who were rated the highest at balancing results with relationships saw 62% of employees willing to give extra effort, while only 3% were ‘quiet quitting’.

Leaders who are implementing policies that promote mental wellness and brain health will need to realise that this means re-evaluating the psychological contract that they have with their employees.

For their mental and physical health, and to reverse this epidemic of stress related illness, people need to be able to switch off from work and embrace a personal life. If this is being encouraged by their employers, then these workers will reward their employers with fresh, inspired, and innovative thinking instead of bad decision making and ‘tired ideas’.

If you would like to discuss implementing mental wellness practices in your workplace and developing brain health programs, get in touch with me at pamela@orgshakers.com

Hybrid and remote working have become a post-pandemic norm, and have paved the way for an entirely new working environment – the metaverse. This is a virtual reality environment where employees can meet and interact from anywhere around the world through avatars – digital versions of themselves – which they have designed.

The concept of the metaverse has started to gain significant traction, with a poll conducted by HR Magazine finding that over a third of respondents thought the technology was suitable for business, and that they were excited about using it. Many companies have even started rushing to buy virtual ‘offices’ in prime locations in these simulated universes.

On the one hand, the introduction of a digital working world can offer those working remotely the ability to interact with their colleagues more authentically. However, the rise of the metaverse also brings with it the question of how to approach it from a HR perspective.

How do you monitor diversity and inclusion when people can choose what they want to look like?

The process of designing one’s avatar is important for the metaverse to work. Having face-to-face interaction is what makes this technological development so attractive to organizations, but this will require a different set of people policies to those we currently have in the real world.

For example, when someone is creating their avatar, they will probably want it to look like them – but it will likely be an ‘enhanced’ version of themselves. After all, this is an opportunity to make yourself look the way you have always wanted! This is known as the ‘Proteus effect’ with employees adjusting their height, age, wardrobe, etc. to fit their desired self-image.

However, this risks creating an expectation that avatars should be physically ‘perfect’ which, in turn, could undermine the self-esteem and mental wellbeing of some individuals.

And while altering your avatar to have features which are manifestly different to your own might be considered harmful (or even offensive), organizations will need to decide whether there certain circumstances where significantly changing your avatar’s appearance might be acceptable. For example, if a wheelchair user were allowed to create an avatar which does not use one, would this create a workplace culture where people can be recognised for their ability to do their job rather their physical differences – or one where physical conformity is a requirement for an individual to feel that they belong? These are difficult ethical choices.

How do you design people strategies for people that are no longer physical?

Creating policies surrounding the creation of avatars is one thing, but the way employees behave towards each other in the metaverse workplace in another.

‘Trolling’ is a common internet phenomenon in which people will bully and harass others online through harmful comments. In the context of the workplace, if a colleague is offensive to you online it would probably be considered equally as severe if they were offensive to you in person. Most organizations already have procedures in place to deal with this type of verbal harassment – digital or otherwise.

But what about ‘physical’ harassment in the metaverse?

There have already been issues of avatars being assaulted by virtual colleagues, which begs the question whether this would (or should) be dealt with by employers in the same way they would respond to a similar assault in the real world. If I virtually strike your avatar, is that as bad as actually striking you?

So, the full implications of working in the metaverse are yet to be determined, but it is already clear that the HR strategies and policies we will require for this virtual workplace to be safe and inclusive for every employee will require careful consideration.

And although this may be a vision of the future, organizations should be starting to think about it in the present.

“You will fit in perfectly here” is a phrase that many of us will be familiar with hearing after receiving a new job. And while this is positive, it can make you wonder what employers really mean when they say an employee is a ‘good fit’.

Is a ‘good fit’ someone the interviewer feels they would get along with on a personal level? Someone who looks and sounds like they do? Or could it be someone who they think will blend seamlessly into the current team?

If such a small phrase raises this many questions, there is probably a hidden meaning behind these words.

To begin with, what do we mean by a ‘good fit’? For me, it is all about culture. Each organization has its own culture which is made up of common practices driven by its values and the working practices of their leaders and supervisors. This culture will have formed over time, and typically, a company will hire candidates that reflect their way of thinking and behaving. In other words, they are a ‘good fit’.

For example, research by Totaljobs found that 67% of employers saw a candidate’s cultural fit as ‘very important’, with one in five going as far as saying they would not hire a candidate if they were not the right cultural fit. However, the idea of maintaining a company’s culture could be the very thing holding it back.

Tara Ryan, the Director of People Experience at Monzo, pointed out that if you are trying to preserve your workplace culture, you are not giving it the opportunity to evolve. In short, the potential for business progression is being lost due to this rigid mindset.

Sure, employing people who ‘fit’ may help create a cosy camaraderie, but it will not necessarily bring anything new and innovative to the table to help your business increase its productivity and maintain a competitive advantage. Tapping into a wider range of attitudes and perspectives will enable you to push the boundaries of what you are trying to achieve and remain the preferred business partner to your clients.

So, rather than assessing if a potential hire is a culture fit, start assessing how they will be a culture add. What can this individual add to our culture to ensure we become irreplaceable to our clients?

While this approach is good in theory, it can be tougher in practice. Laura Rivera conducted a study for her book Pedigree: How Elite Students Get Elite Jobs which highlighted that only half of managers had a clear understanding of what their organizational culture was. In light of this, a shift to culture add can only be achieved by investing time in helping leaders understand what your company’s culture is, how it impacts business outcomes, and how hiring and leveraging a greater diversity of talent can strengthen it.

At OrgShakers we want to help you seize this opportunity by developing your Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DE&I) strategies. You can read more about the DE&I framework we use here or contact me directly at: Marty@OrgShakers.com.

For most of history, publicly traded companies have defined their purpose rather narrowly: they existed first and foremost to serve shareholders, and their interactions with customers, employees, governments, suppliers, the environment, and wider communities were subordinated to this agenda. Now, however, the definition and scope of a company’s purpose is clearly changing. Throughout the business world, people are asking why shareholders, many of whom have only passing affiliation with the company, should be prioritized over stakeholders whose lives are deeply tied to the company’s existence and decisions?

This can be a tricky topic. Conversations about ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) strategy and stakeholder management can at times be muddied by idealism, cynicism, or both. But getting ESG right isn’t just the right thing to do, it’s an important part of running a profitable business. Every organization and leadership team must now take the time to think more broadly about how they can interact with and capitalize upon the interlocking network of constituencies to which they relate.

So, how do you go about implementing a solid ESG plan?

How do you drive those values down through your organization, embedding a sense of corporate responsibility into the company’s culture?

And how do you manage your duties to non-financial stakeholders while continuing to provide value to shareholders?

Getting ESG right is hard – but Systemic Team Coaching can help produce great results by helping teams evaluate the systems that they interact with, identify the stakeholders involved in those systems, and develop strategies that accommodate a wide array of stakeholder needs.

In other words, Systemic Team Coaching helps teams pluralize their understanding of value and success.

What is Systemic Team Coaching?

Systemic Team Coaching was developed by Dr. Peter Hawkins, who in his book Leadership Team Coaching, defines the practice thus:

“Systemic Team Coaching is a process by which a team coach works with a whole team, both when they are together and when they are apart, in order to help them improve both their collective performance and how they work together, and also how they develop their collective leadership to more effectively engage with all their key stakeholder groups to jointly transform the wider business.”

We work with leaders and teams to define their function in relation to the function of their wider organization and that organization’s impacts on a wide array of stakeholders. We help teams work together to improve their collective performance, placing special emphasis on how a team’s interaction approaches, communications, values, incentive structures and goals can be further aligned to the needs of the business and the needs of the wider stakeholder community.

How it works: The Five Disciplines of High Value Creating Teams

Also developed by Peter Hawkins, the Five Disciplines of High Value Creating Teams is a highly practical Systemic Team Coaching framework that gives teams guidance on how and where to develop their effectiveness.

1. Clarifying

Clarifying is the process of developing a set of agreed-upon objectives, and it refers to what the team needs to focus on in order to drive strategy. This typically includes addressing the team’s purpose, vision, strategy, objectives, roles, and responsibilities. As coaches, we work with the team to clarify their tasks, their wider purpose, and the methods they intend to utilize—making sure that the company’s core business is weighted alongside diversity and other ESG concerns.

2. Commissioning

Commissioning refers to agreeing upon a relationship between a team’s objectives and its stakeholders. For a team to successfully meet its business goals while also pursuing meaningful ESG strategies, it needs to have a clear understanding of stakeholder requirements and to articulate a success criteria that takes these requirements into account. In this phase of coaching, our team coaches work to expand the team’s understanding of its relationship to its wider stakeholder system, especially as it relates to the ESG strategy.

3. Co-creating

Co-creating refers to teamwork and teamwork methodologies. Either consciously or not, all teams work together to build their own behavioral norms and value structures that, taken together, help determine their collective performance. In order to maximize that performance, and to create the healthiest possible workplace culture, our coaches work with teams to help them consciously build the teamwork methodologies that work for them and will generate the most value.

4. Connecting

Connecting is the process of combining the first three disciplines in such a way that ensures effective stakeholder engagement. It means identifying all stakeholders, defining their unique relationships, and building the appropriate strategies to serve them. Ultimately, the term stakeholder includes an incredibly wide range of people and groups, each of which requires slightly different things from your organization. Some of them (e.g. employees and suppliers) provide value to the team; others (e.g. communities and shareholders) rely on the team to create value for them. Managing these relationships is the responsibility of the whole team not just the team leader.

5. Core Learning

Core learning refers to how the team needs to continually learn and adapt in order to meet the evolving needs of the market, the organization, the team itself, and its stakeholders. One of the challenges of establishing an ESG strategy is coming to terms with the fact that your stakeholders will evolve alongside your operations. Opening new business units, launching new product lines, relocating teams to new locations, expanding into new markets—all of these core aspects of doing business will change the inventory of stakeholders that have to be served by both local and senior leadership teams.

Team coaches help the team step away from their day-to-day tasks and reflect upon their performance processes. The goal here is to codify not just specific lessons the team has learned but also the process by which they were learned so that the team can begin to coach themselves. By focusing on the process of learning rather than simply the lessons themselves, teams prepare themselves to react to the fluid and unforeseeable needs of the future. This stage of coaching also involves supporting and developing the processes and performance of every team member— identifying strengths and weaknesses and coming up with tactics for future situations.

For teams to perform at their best and cast the widest possible net of value for the widest possible suite of stakeholders, they need to be effective in all five of these disciplines.

Conclusion

Systemic Team Coaching can help leadership leaders and their teams improve their collective value- creating performance, allowing their organizations to work toward a pluralized set of goals that provide simultaneous benefit to a wide variety of stakeholder groups.

In working with clients across the industry spectrum, we’ve noticed that nearly every team and organization has stakeholders of whom, for one reason or another, they are either unaware or are potentially impacted by unrecognized ESG concerns. Systemic Team Coaching is an excellent approach to ensuring the maximum effectiveness of a company’s ESG strategy.

The Five Disciplines of High Value Creating Teams Graphic courtesy of the Global Teams Coaching Institute

A YouGov survey of 1,025 HR decision makers working across UK businesses has found that almost three quarters (72%) of businesses do not have a menopause policy.

This is despite it being widely accepted that the effects of the menopause can be debilitating for a woman’s physical and psychological wellbeing.

Symptoms such as joint pain, hot flushes, memory loss, fatigue, and anxiety can have a huge impact on a women’s confidence and workplace performance.

Indeed, a recent survey published by renowned GP and menopause specialist Dr Louise Newson found that 99% of respondents said their perimenopausal or menopausal symptoms had led to a negative impact on their careers, with more than a third calling the impact ‘significant’.

Almost 20% were off more than eight weeks and half of this group resigned or took early retirement.

Key findings from the YouGov survey include:

Almost three quarters (72%) of businesses do not have a menopause policy.
Over a quarter (27%) of large businesses (250 employees or more) say they have a menopause policy but only 10% of small firms (0-50 employees) do.
Even within organisations where the workforce is more than 50% women, the same low level of organisations (13%) have no menopause policy.
Only 16% of businesses train their line managers about the menopause. 94% of organisations in hospitality & leisure surveyed say they provide no training in this area.
Almost half (44%) of all the businesses that say they do not train their staff about the menopause admit to not having thought about it. 15% don’t consider it a priority whilst 7% claim that sensitivities and embarrassment about the issue hold them back.
Only half of organisations questioned (50%) say they are confident that women in their organisation are feel able to talk about the menopause. Almost 1/3 (31%) say they are not confident and 1 in 5 say they’re don’t know.
Within organisations where the proportion of women was the highest, the confidence levels amongst HR teams that employees are able to talk to their employer was the lowest (57%).
Only 18% of organisations say they provide information about the menopause to their employees with 13% offering internal support groups.
Almost 2/3 (64%) of businesses say they do not consider menopause during performance reviews for female staff. This is even higher in some sectors including manufacturing (76%), hospitality & leisure (75%), media, marketing & advertising (67%).

The YouGov survey was commissioned by employment law specialists at Irwin Mitchell. The total sample size was 1,025 HR decision makers and fieldwork was undertaken between 10th – 28th February 2022. The survey was carried out online.

Throughout my career I’ve found myself gravitating towards startup assignments.

I’m a builder, so I find creating a business from scratch and calming the chaos extremely fulfilling.

Entrepreneurs who have chosen to create, develop, and execute a service or product are, by necessity, focused on growing the business.

External consultants, on the other hand, can deal with the time-consuming – but essential – details that keep the business on track:

Bringing a consultant on board gives entrepreneurs the freedom to focus on strategy and innovation, without getting bogged-down in the tactical aspects of scaling a business.
Experienced consultants are likely to have experienced similar growth environments and can share with entrepreneurs valuable ‘tricks and tips’ to drive organic growth. With a consultant’s guidance business founders can make and invest in better decisions from the start without the experimentation that wastes time, money, and energy.
Consultants are outside the business team and vested in the success of their assignment. As a result, they can rise above the office politics and interpersonal dynamics that inhibit the execution of strategy. Indeed, they can give business founders the honest, objective feedback they need to address these issues before they become problems.

On a recent assignment I found myself executing on all the above, allowing the business founder to shift their focus away from tactical areas best left for functional leaders and to spend more time fundraising for the company’s next investment series.

This is where we can help.

OrgShakers consultants have the knowledge, tools, and expertise across a wide range of People disciplines to give business founders the reassurance that what they have already built is in good hands … while freeing them up to focus on the growth of the company.