Employee Satisfaction = Customer Satisfaction
A few days ago I had a good discussion with one senior banker on strategy and people. It’s bothering me that, according to him, in his experience many seniors spend more time talking about strategy than they do about employees. Many articles out there talk about this topic from various angles, but rarely from a standpoint of an employee – which is crucial, because employees are the ones who get to have frequent interactions with clients, not management. I do believe that when employees are happy, their state of well being can be very infectious…in a positive way. In fact, it will radiate and affect everyone around them,…in a positive way! If you look at it this way, I believe attention to people management is a strategy on its own, one that influence an overall business strategy – in a positive way!
In many cases, failures of strategy execution lie not in the “how” or “why”, but more in the “Who”. In his book, Good to Great, Jim Collins points out that a leader with humility will most likely influence business sustainability. This really makes sense, since a person who has empathy for others tend to put employee well being as a priority, among other things. Although it is easier said than done, ensuring employees feel content in doing their job can benefit a company for the following reasons:
- It is more costly for companies to recruit than to retain people.
- Product brand depends heavily on good service, which depends heavily on good people.
- Bad word of mouth (rumor) spreads quickly than a good one, especially if they originate from well known companies.
- Content employees are superior advertising agents.
Most managers are aware of this, as this concept has been around since management books were first written, but unfortunately too many of them aim for short term solution, because dealing with people issues is like shooting a moving target. For the same reason, this is why I think management should invest more time picking the right people, before putting a strategy in place. To illustrate my point, please refer to the following:
Vision –> Strategy –> People –> Objectives –> Implementation
Whereas it should be:
Vision –> People –> Strategy –> Objectives –> Implementation
Many would argue with me as the concept may seem oversimplified. I couldn’t agree more; it is quiet simple to grasp, but extremely difficult to implement. When you look at it this way, one of root causes of employee dissatisfaction may not always stem out from discontent employees, but may come from selecting the right people for the right jobs. I’m not saying problems would go away, but they’d surely be minimized.
In a hyper-competitive world we live in today, particularly during this recessionary period, running a business without a clear strategy would be detrimental to company success. But a strategy is only as good as the employees who implement it. Hence, focus on people should be the first priority, and is actually a good “strategy” to begin with. Without people, good people that is, it would be difficult to translate strategies into actions.
Here’s an excerpt of an article written by Customer Experience virtuoso, Bruce Temkin, on how employee engagement can have a direct impact on customer experience:
By focusing on employees, companies can establish what I’m calling the Employee Experience Virtuous Cycle where they end up with more loyal customers, stronger financials, and more engaged employees.
any well educated person would know this. and although this concept mainly applies to customer oriented services, people will always be rated highly in the strategic direction of any successful organisation. the problem lies within putting the strategy into practice when weighted against other corporate priorities. due to the nature of business (particularly in a “hyper-competitive world”) there is generally little time and resources available to focus on putting the right people strategies into place. it all becomes about the bottom line. sales become the driving motivator and it’s expensive to justify investment in something that’s generally intangible in terms of figures sent out to shareholders. this whole topic has more to do with corporate culture than it does to do with corporate strategy, and, i find your style of writing, annoying.
Thanks for taking your time leaving a comment. Of course, you’re entitled to your opinion. I do, however, think majority of people would agree with you. My intention is to highlight the other side of the coin, which is entirely subjective, based on my personal views alone. Whether you like it or not, it is even more annoying to see incompetent managers running business like there’s no tomorrow. Much like my writing, fortunately there’s still a chance to improve. This whole post is there to serve that purpose, hoping that someone out there shares the same view, as naif as it may sound.
Three Way, I don’t think Aldi’s writing style is annoying. A negative person can easily ignore the beauty of having various views on a subject matter. Then again, everyone is entitled to their opinion. It is true that an organization must focus on maximizing values for its shareholders. But to sustain these values, particularly in today’s rapid changing environment, organizations must execute strategy with the right people in mind. Managers get their work done through people. Employee performance clearly has a direct correlation with company performance (it’s a given). Dealing with people may be difficult and require considerable investments, but definitely worth fighting for.
Based on your writing, Three Way, I can tell that you may not have a clear understanding on strategy and culture, let alone management. Your personal attack on Aldi’s writing is so lame and baseless. I wonder why (it became personal;))