Unleashing the full capacity of your people

The Paradox of Employee Engagement: It Works Yet Few Companies Try

Source: brandautopsy.com

Source: brandautopsy.com

The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer.

The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue.

The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. Because they know the technical skill set, and have performed well managing tasks and projects (admittedly with some need to manage interpersonal relationships), they are presumed to also have the talent to motivate others to perform those same tasks at a high level.

This assumption is false: Most of us do not intrinsically own the attributes of a transformational leader. Most of us need to be taught these basic professional skills. And, most of us are talented enough to learn them.

Leadership is not exclusionary. There are few “born leaders.” Anyone can lead, if connected to the skills needed and given the motivation to adopt and embed them. Organizations that jump on that opportunity reap big competitive advantages by improving the employee experience, which improves the customer experience. Which leads to PROFITS!

The greatest investment any company can make is in leadership training and development for the first rungs of management within their operations. Create effective leaders there, and the impact on the contribution of front-line workers will skyrocket.

Your products are made by front-line people. Your production facilities are run by front-line people. Your services are delivered by front-line people. These people have the most impact on your customers’ experience. Should they not be the best-led people in your organization???

Does your organization work at creating leaders at all levels of your organization? Do you see the competitive advantage that this could create, given that most organizations seem not to be able to sustain employee engagement initiatives?

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

Related posts

Memorial Day – A Day of Remembrance and Reflection

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Bovo-Tighe Wishes You the Best of All Possible New Years!

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Fix Employee Disengagement in 2017

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

The Leadership Habit Changes You Need for 2017

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

The Power of the Compliment as an Engagement Tool

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

On Memorial Day – Remembrance and Acknowledgement

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Help Employees Build a Productive Culture

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

In Leadership Development, Results Should Trump Methodology

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Situational Leadership Skills? Such Agility is a Natural Result of Good Training

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

The Role of Well-Being in Sustaining Workplace Performance

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Brooke Bovo Featured Speaker at TTISI Winter Conference

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Leadership Kick-Start for 2016 – Engage!

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

10 Lists to Muse About When Starting the New Year

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Raise Productivity in 2016 Using Team-Based Employee Engagement

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Team Leaders Use the Power of Truth to Align Motivation With Mission

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Happy Thanksgiving from All of Us at Bovo-Tighe

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

The Smart Way to Ask Stupid Questions

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

The Manager as Teacher

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Employee Engagement is Not Fun!

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

The Human Aspects of HUET Programs – OPITO Abu Dhabi

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Workplace Zombies that Drag Down Productivity – Beware!

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Four Leadership Tips to Make November More Productive

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Bovo Tighe Boosts Productivity by Raising Employee Engagement – Team by Team

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Aberdeen Research Finds Connection Between Employee Engagement and Customer Satisfaction

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

The ROI of Team Engagement – How to Measure?

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

How Well Do You Grow Future Leaders?

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Challenge Negative Mindsets When Pursuing New Ideas

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

A Fresh Start on Performance Reviews: Alere Sets a Great Example

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Generation Xers are Today’s Leaders – Invest in Them

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

How Can Your Words Build or Break Trust With Co-Workers?

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

The Lemonade of Employee Turnover

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Google Survey Connects Workplace Flexibility to Morale – No Surprise There!

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Employee Engagement is a Two-Way Street

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

You Will Not Engage Every Employee – Nor Should You

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Make August Your Personal Rejuvenation Month

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

The Unbiased Opinion is a Myth. Discard It.

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Time to Act Civilly at Work? Professor Porath Says It Pays Off.

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

When Motivating Employees, Do Words Get In the Way?

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

How to Sell Senior Executives on the Value of Talent Development

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Temporary Project Teams Need Scaffolding to Work Well

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

To Manage or To Lead – That is the Question

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Break Conversational Habits to Break Out of Ruts

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Schedule that “Thirdly Review”!

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Make Spring Fever a Productive Force at Work

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Change Happens Inside Out – Driven By Middle Managers

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Hiring Outsiders Costs Money. Save it by Investing in Human Development.

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

How Quickly Does Your Culture Sub-Optimize New Talent?

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

How Do You Fix a Jerk at Work?

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Valentines Day Marks the Halfway Point in Q1 – How Are Your Leadership Resolutions Fairing?

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

More Grist for the “Why Are Employees Not Engaged” Chat Mill

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Dave Tighe Joins Writers on LinkedIn as Employee Engagement Expert

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Leadership Tips for Kicking Off 2015

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

In 2015 Employee Engagement Will Look Like It Did in 2014…and 2013…

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Employee Engagement Must Address Professional and Personal Performance Factors

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

January Leadership Advice Deluge has Begun! Resist the Urge to Read It All.

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

McKinsey Offers Evidence: Senior Executives Still Struggle With Leadership Habits

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Happy Holidays from Bovo-Tighe!

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

2014 is Done – Time to Kick-Start January

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Sweat the Small Stuff Says Rory Sutherland in a TED Talk – This is What Bovo-Tighe Does for You

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Happy Thanksgiving from Bovo-Tighe

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Just Twenty Working Days ‘Till Christmas – What Can You Get Done???

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Defend Human Development Investments Strategically

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Be Great to Work With

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Leaders Must Still Manage. You Don’t Get Off That Hook!

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

It Takes Time to Change Employee Habits – And Lots of Support.

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Employee Recognition – Easy to Say, Hard (it seems) to Do

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Misguided Advice from Monster about Aspiring to a Leadership Role

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Honda Waigaya and Outward Bound – Lessons in Patient Leadership

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Master the Art of Questioning (and Listening) to Better Raise Productivity

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Kick-Start Your Team’s Productivity Push for Autumn

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Leaders Master the Art of Questioning to Raise Employee Engagement

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Halogen Software Offers Sample Comments for Performance Reviews. We Disapprove!

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Asking Silly Questions Makes You Smarter

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Employee Engagement is Personal, So Personalize Your Approach

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Maslow’s Hierarchy and Employee Engagement – Make the Connections!

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

The Case of the Market Basket CEO – Leaders Who Care Get Strong Employee Support

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Leaders: Spend More Time Leading People and Less Time Doing Stuff

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Take Steps to Run Better Meetings – Walk While You Talk

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Confident Leaders Keep Arrogance at Bay With a Dose of Humility

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Employee Engagement is Really Simple – But Does Take Energy and Focus

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Great Leaders See Themselves as Others See Them – And Engage Better

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Sayonara June! Hola July! Time for Mid-Year Resolutions.

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Leaven Your Positive Leadership Outlook With Real-World Negativity – Pursue the Truth!

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Reset Your Leadership Mindset for the Next Six Months

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Great Leaders Make Life Better for Their Followers

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Defend No Process – Defend the Mission Against Old Processes

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

How to Maintain Workplace Productivity During the Summer Vacation Season

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

A More Productive Mindset for Work in Six Steps

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

A Great Set of Productivity Tips – Read This Instead of Facebook at Lunch Today

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Honor the Last Full Measure of Devotion on Memorial Day

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

As a leader, you will get angry – How you handle that anger is critical to team productivity

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Middle Managers Can All Lead – If You Show Them How

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Never Assume: Pursuit of Truth Makes Decision-Making Better

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

The Last Mile of Employee Engagement is the Hardest to Travel

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

We Love the Energizing Month of May

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Transformational Leadership Skill Spring Shape-Up

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Still Pushing Employees to the Brink: A bad habit from the Great Recession.

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Toyota Agrees: Machines Don’t Innovate – People Do.

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Leadership Development Gaps Expose a Lack of Strategic Commitment

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

“Overnight” Organizational Change Takes Great Long-Term Leadership

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

A “Lucky Seven” Set of Tips for the Freshly Minted Leader

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Does Your Online Presence Promote You?

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Leaders Don’t Pick Winners: Develop All of Your Team Members

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

May the Wind be at Your Back this St. Patrick’s Day

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Leadership Lessons for the Ides of March

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Our Foundations of Excellence Refresher

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Great Conversations Build Employee Engagement

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

i4cp Research Isolates Six Key Employee Engagement Factors

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Tap Untapped Talent You Have Already Hired

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Each Great Leader is Unique, But They All Engage

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Bovo-Tighe Supports Shell in Launch of New Gulf Platform

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Annual Performance Reviews Should be the Icing not the Cake

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Resources We Rely On for New Ideas about Employee Engagement

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Machines Don’t Innovate: People Do.

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Hide From Your Manager to Get More Done!

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Leadership Quotes to Get Your Mind Set for February

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Leadership Development Does Not Have to Cost an Arm and a Leg

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Brooke Bovo at TTI Winter Conference: Love Your Clients, Not Your Expertise

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Why Does Leadership Development Fail to Create Great Leaders?

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

New Year Resolution: Make a Habit of Your Productive Mindset

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

OSHA Discloses Most Common Workplace Hazards – The List Remains the Same

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Leadership Lessons from Scrooge and the Grinch

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Merry Christmas from Bovo-Tighe

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

McKinsey Highlights Slow Adoption Rate for Intra-Company Social Networks

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Holiday Employee Gifts that Cost Little More Than a Bit of Your Time

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Books to Inspire Great Leaders Include Goodwin’s “Team of Rivals”

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

A Culture of Agility Requires a Commitment to the Pursuit of Truth

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Lean Manufacturing Demands Fully Engaged Employees

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Happy Thanksgiving from Bovo-Tighe

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Rob Markey of Bain and Co.: Employee Engagement Rocks!

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Flexible Job Schedules Can Win Employee Loyalty

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Employee Engagement a Strategic HR Imperative for 2014

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Maintaining Work-Life Balance During the Holidays

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Remember Veterans on Veterans Day with a Heartfelt Thank You

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Defuse the Gunpowder Barrel with Sustained Employee Engagement

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Happy Halloween from Bovo-Tighe!

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Minga Foundation Ups Productivity by Raising Awareness of Personal Motivators

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

How Pessimists Keep Optimists in the Black

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Gallup Employee Engagement Results Not Budging

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Stop Being Nice at Work? Not So Fast!

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Aberdeen Report Finds Competitive Advantage for Companies that Improve Hiring Processes

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Three Leadership Tasks That Unleash Team Productivity

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

What Prevents Teamwork From Adding Value?

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

How Can You Make a Vacation From Work Truly Stress-Free?

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Time Off is Restorative – Organizations that Don’t Encourage It Lose Out

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Have Employees Track Their Own Successes to Raise Engagement

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

A Quick Cost/Benefit Analysis of Employee Training and Development

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Bovo-Tighe Participates in 2013 CLO Forum

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Labor Day in the U.S.: A Connection to Employee Engagement

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Great Employee Engagement Starts by Asking a Lot of Questions

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Leadership Inspiration for a Hot Day in August

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Employee Engagement Remains Elusive: You Are the Problem and the Solution

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

More Thoughts on the Great Value of Middle Management Leadership Training

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Working from Home Does Raise Employee Engagement, if Done the Right Way

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Define leadership more broadly. Anyone can lead, at any level.

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Engaged Employees Accumulate Business Acumen

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Engaged Employees Honor the Pursuit of Truth – And You Should Value That Trait

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Bovo-Tighe Presents Dole Case Study at HR Star Conference

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Build a Corporate Culture that Embraces Change

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Happy Independence Day

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Celebrating Failure? You Bet! How Else Can You Learn New Stuff?

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

CEOs Must Foster Culture Based on People – Not Process

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Gallup Confirms the American Worker Remains Unengaged

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Bovo-Tighe Senior Consultant Steve Eddy Honored at the University of Nebraska

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Is it possible to be overworked and underutilized?

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Create Great Leaders in Your Organization

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Retain Talent by Fostering Professional and Personal Growth

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Leadership Starts with Engagement

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Take the Time to Say Thank You to Those Who Died Defending Us

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

When Should You Micromanage Employees?

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Leadership in Public Management

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Time to Rehire Yourself?

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Of Lollipops and Leadership

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

HubSpot and Netflix Offer Insights on Building Productive Organizational Cultures

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Why We Love May at Bovo-Tighe

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Are Millennials Really Different About Job-Hopping?

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Bovo-Tighe and Harvard Business School Are On the Same Page

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Lessons on Leadership from Britain’s Royal Navy

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Raise the Meaning Quotient for Employees to Raise Productivity

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Employees Can Only Manage Their Time if the Organization Lets Them

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Social Media Collaboration is Shaking Up How Employees Engage with Each Other

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Goal Alignment Takes Work and Communication that Counts

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Our Philosophy about the Pursuit of Truth Includes Your Health

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Three Key Drivers of Employee Engagement

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

March Madness is a Leadership Moment

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

May the road rise to meet you on this St. Patrick’s Day.

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

QBQ works well with the Bovo-Tighe Foundations of Excellence philosophy

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Leadership Tales from Top People – Courtesy of LinkedIn

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Marissa Mayer Should Focus on Employee Engagement

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Accelerative Learning Article Now Posted on eZineArticles.com

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Drop Your Information Filters to Boost Engagement with Fellow Employees

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

More Thoughts on How to Engage Employees

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Challenging “Accepted Wisdom” Unlocks Creativity and Productivity

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Quotes that make you think – Are you open to the truths you need to hear?

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Passion at Work: Nurturing it Starts the First Day of Employment

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Stephen Covey: A Truly Inspirational Force for Innovation in Human Development

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Summer Thoughts on the Pursuit of Truth

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Employee Dissatisfaction Still the Norm in 2012 – Therein Lies Opportunity!

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Exploring 8 Rules for Creating Passionate Corporate Cultures (Round Three)

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Stop Hating Meetings: Fix Them Yourself!

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

New Bovo-Tighe Article on eZineArticles.com about Better Meeting Practices

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Employees are Consumers of Corporate Culture: They won’t “buy in” until you earn their trust!

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

101 Steps Towards Better Leadership

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Transformational vs. Transactional Leadership: A Worthy Distinction

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

The Cure for Bad Meetings: Pay Attention and Contribute!

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Caring for Your Employees Unlocks Great Productivity

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Leadership Behavior Can Stifle Productivity – Even Unintentionally

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Leadership: Its Trappings Lead Good People Astray

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Information Underload: Bad for Employee Engagement

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Zen and the Pursuit of Truth at Work

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Client News: Shell Sets Record for Deepest Oil and Gas Well

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

How Kingsford Charcoal Taught DuPont a Thing or Two About Employee Engagement

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

How Kingsford Charcoal Taught DuPont a Thing or Two about Employee Engagement

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Bovo-Tighe Client Newsletter – November 2011

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Workplace Time Wasters: Facebook vs. the Two-Martini Lunch

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Dumb Things Bosses Do

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Dumb Things Bosses Do

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Bovo-Tighe Client Newsletter October 2011

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Steve Jobs: A Born Visionary Who Learned to be a Leader

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Old United “Speech” Ad Still Resonates Strongly in the Digital Age

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Power Breeds Overconfidence in Leaders

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Do You Know All the Facets of Employee Engagement?

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Coaching for Senior Executives Must Come Up From Subordinates

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Bovo-Tighe’s September Client Newsletter – 2011

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Bovo-Tighe Client Newsletter – Summer 2011

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Presenting at the National Property Management Association Annual Education Seminar

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Bovo-Tighe connects with the HR community at the HR Star Conference

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Book Review: How to be Happy, Dammit!

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Bovo-Tighe Client Newsletter June 2011

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

One-Foot-Out-the-Door Disease is Bad for Productivity

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

How best to make leadership training truly work? Never stop!

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Bovo-Tighe shares a snap-shot of its ongoing work on Alaska’s North Slope

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Leadership: It all starts with you

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Bovo-Tighe Newsletter May 2011

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Bovo-Tighe at the Offshore Technology Conference

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

We applaud our client, the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation, on their Webby Award

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Technoserve extends its initiatives in Africa by leveraging Bovo-Tighe expertise.

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Irrational Decision-Making: Embrace the Human Factor!

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Performance Management Needs to Recover its Mojo

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

A standing ovation for an active client, Technoserve, which helps poor communities thrive worldwide!

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Bovo-Tighe’s March 2011 Client Newsletter

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

The Bombardier Case Study: Successful Commitment to Employee Engagement

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Talent Management: All agree we need it. Few act on it.

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Talent Management: A Strategic Imperative with little actual support

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

On Performance Reviews: The Urge to be Better-than-Worst Raises Productivity

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Influence Competence: Effective Employee Engagement Skills Under a New Name

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Talent Management: How It Helps With Crisis Management

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Employee Engagement: Have you thought about ice cream?

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Tasked with Corporate Training? Seek Outside Help

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Corporate Communications: Keep an Equal Balance Between Ethics and Achievement

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Changing Corporate Mindsets is the Critical Path to Cultural Change: Now We Have Research to Prove It!

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Bovo-Tighe explores Kazakh Psychologies of Achievement

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Corporate Cultures: Bottom-up change is best.

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Are people truly your company’s best asset? Can you prove it?

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Compensation Plans vs Employee Emotion

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Pay-For-Performance versus Full Engagement

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

On Leadership: Would you work for yourself?

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Employee Engagement is simply the Foundation for Excellence

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Why doesn’t employee training work better?

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Change Management: The entire organization needs to participate

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Fostering Innovation: HR Must Lead the Way

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

About that left brain-right brain split: It doesn’t happen.

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

With Leadership Development: Are We Smarter that Fifth-Graders?

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Bovo-Tighe’s January 2011 Client Newsletter

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Corporate Flu Epidemics: What Sort of Infectious Attitudes Do You Spread Around?

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Bovo-Tighe December Newsletter

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Change employee behavior by changing their bad habits.

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Be the first on your block to re-engage your employees.

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

What successful transformations share

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

The psychology of change management

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

“engagement” and “fun”

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

No One Was Ever Motivated by a Meeting

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

No One Ever Improved by Having Their “Performance Reviewed Annually”

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Meetings That Rock!

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Failed IT Investments – Consider People Aspects Before Purchase!

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Workers Are Lazy Ingrates, Say Evil Bosses

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

The irrational side of change management

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Corporate Mission Statements die on Plaques

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

Inhibit Intellectual Growth and Innovation in Your Company

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

How to incorrectly use ‘Management By Objectives’

[caption id="attachment_997" align="alignright" width="300"]Source: brandautopsy.com Source: brandautopsy.com[/caption] The recent issuing of Gallup’s dismal reading of employee engagement around the world sparked a memory in us of a paper written way back in 2007 by a Stanford professor named Jeffrey Pfeffer. The paper (find it here) has the wheezy academic title of “Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained.” But it really nails the issue. The paradox is not hard to spot: Even in the face of massive evidence that employee development has significant positive impacts on productivity, and therefore profits, most organizations fail to invest in it. As Prof. Pfeffer puts it:

1) Workplaces in America and elsewhere show pervasive job dissatisfaction, distrust, and disengagement, (which) have a number of negative consequences for employers as well as employees.

2) How people are managed and their job satisfaction and job attitudes are both substantively and statistically significant predictors of a number of dimensions of organizational performance. Comprehensive evidence…also helps us identify high-performance management practices.

3) In spite of the fact that much of what is required to build engaged and successful organizations is at once well-known and not always costly to implement, many, maybe most, organizations have failed to take appropriate actions, thereby, in some sense, “leaving money on the table.”

There is a strange assumption that every person who exhibits a desire to get ahead (pursues a promotion into management, say) contains in their DNA the wiring to be a great leader. 

One comment

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.




Top