(AdobeStock/Halfpoint)
Sometimes we experience what Yogi Berra described as “déjà vu all over again.” It happened to me several weeks ago and left me wondering whether it’s déjà vu or whether things really have changed.
Years ago, my colleague at Harvard Business School, Len Schlesinger, and I published an article that laid out two human resource strategies that we labeled the “cycle of success” and the “cycle of failure.” Our late colleague at HBS, Christopher Lovelock, wisely suggested we later consider the term “cycle of mediocrity.” The “cycle of success,” among other things, was centered around fewer, carefully selected, better-paid people performing complex jobs requiring extensive training, with resulting higher employee retention and lower costs of selection, hiring, and training for new employees. This contrasts with a “cycle of mediocrity,” in which jobs are simplified, selection is less important, training is reduced, along with compensation, and as a result, there is a high rate of turnover with more time spent on recruiting (but not necessarily training).
Within weeks of the publication of the article, we received a letter from the owner of a retail organization who represented himself as a successful entrepreneur. The gist of the letter was that there was one thing wrong with what we wrote. It was that: “People don’t want to work any more. So I’ve designed my jobs accordingly. They can be performed by any reasonably intelligent person without much training. I may have to have a few more people, so I can’t afford to pay them as much. Then they get up and leave me. So I have to spend quite a lot of time hiring. Fortunately, there are others out there that I can hire until they decide they don’t want to work. But all in all, the business still makes money.”
“As I hung up the phone, I began to wonder whether it was déjà vu or whether things really have changed.”
Then recently, within hours of one another, I had two similarly contrasting experiences. It happened while I was in California researching a case study about a remarkable chef and maitre d’ pair who run a Michelin-starred restaurant. As I described in last month’s column, their strategy is to create a fine dining experience with less than half the people they employed at their previous restaurant. It requires careful hiring of people willing to work steadily (vs. typical restaurant jobs that have a lot of break time). And they work full-time, willing to do whatever needs doing to deliver a “magical” experience for guests, and willing to both teach their jobs and learn other people’s jobs. For this, team members are rewarded with the highest pay for comparable jobs in Sonoma County while the partners are able to more than double the percentage of revenue brought to the bottom line. The decision in the case has to do with how best to go to a four-day workweek with three-day weekends and paid vacations for everyone.
While still in California, I received a call from the father of an acquaintance complaining about how his retail business had changed. You guessed it. He told me that people just didn’t want to work anymore. He had adjusted in similar ways to the letter-writer. With what sounded like added effort, he apparently was still operating successfully. As I hung up the phone, I began to wonder whether it was déjà vu or whether things really have changed.
Recent Gallup survey results indicate that US employee engagement is “in a slump—but it’s particularly deep for younger workers” and “In 2023, employees felt more detached from—and less satisfied with—their organization … than they did four years ago.” This raises the question of the degree to which management policies vs. employee attitudes toward work are to blame.
Do people want to work anymore? What do you think?
Share your thoughts in the comments below.
Reference:
- Jim Harter, “The New Challenge of Engaging Young Workers,” Gallup/Workplace, February 27, 2024 and “In New Workplace, U.S. Employee Engagement Stagnates,” Gallup/Workplace, January 23, 2024.
- Leonard A. Schlesinger and James L. Heskett, “Breaking the Cycle of Failure in Services,” Sloane Management Review, Spring 1991.
Your feedback to last month’s column
Hiring for attitude, training for skills is an important and winning strategy. But too many applicants experience what Caroline Hickey, in an email to me, described: “As a career coach, I frequently support people through career change and often see people with fantastic attitude and potential be passed over based on skills alone.” Why is this? Is it because too many of us don’t know how to hire for attitude?
Parameswaran Chandrasekr reminded us that “by prioritizing attitude during the hiring process, you can build a team of individuals who not only have the necessary skills but also contribute positively to the overall work environment and company culture. Sheeba Arun went even further, suggesting that it “determines the culture of the organization in many ways.” That was the tone of responses to last month’s column.
The qualities respondents look for in hiring for attitude vary. Sizwe Nku said, “The best companies understand clearly what they stand for, and therefore looking for people based on values-alignment seems like the logical first step.” Allen Reich would concentrate on “level of morale, motivation, and customer service orientation.” Renjith Raveendran would look for individuals who are positive, passionate, open-minded, and able to celebrate someone else’s success.”
In addition to such things as personality assessments, the kinds of questions favored by respondents in hiring for attitude were just as varied. William Cottringer said, “The two best questions I was ever asked … were (a) Do you think people are born good, bad, or neutral … and (b) What is the most important thing you learned from one of your worst failures?” Mr. Raveendran advises us to “ask questions that focus on the candidate’s past behaviors and learning attitudes in certain situations.” Cheryl Lambert reminded us to concentrate on stories, saying: “I think of ‘tell me about yourself’ as the invitation to share one’s personal story, and this is not about accomplishments.”
“Harvard Business School is the graduate business school of Harvard University, a private research university in Boston, Massachusetts. It is consistently ranked among the top business schools in the world and offers a large full-time MBA program, management-related doctoral programs, and executive education programs.”
Please visit the firm link to site
