Leaders Dont Motivate - They Create the Conditions for Self-Motivation

Do you have a safety culture, or do you have safety programs? On the surface this question may appear easy to answer, but the distinction between programs and culture is deceiving. While many organizations believe that programs equate to culture, this inaccuracy can lead to serious consequences. Its like thinking the tip of an iceberg is the iceberg. We know from the story of the Titanic that this distinction can be the difference between survival and tragedy. Safety programs are analogous to the tip of the iceberg, and organizational culture is what lies below the water linethe heart of the iceberg. A positive safety culture can only exist within an organizational culture in which employees are positively engaged with their business, manager or supervisor, and daily work. Employee Engagement It is not uncommon for safety consultants to focus their efforts on assisting organizations in developing and installing safety programs, but few consultants ask the key question, How engaged is your workforce? Although a focus on safety can have a positive impact upon an organizations overall culture, it is not enough. If there remains a high percentage of disengaged employees, any programs put in place will fail to reach their full potential. The Conference Board, a global, independent business membership and research organization working in the public interest since 1916, developed a deKinition for engagement that blends the key elements into one concise statement: [A] heightened emotional and intellectual connection that an employee has for his/her job, organization, manager or coworkers that, in turn, inKluences him/her to apply additional discretionary effort to his/her work. Case Study: How One Company Transformed Its Culture and Safety Record Imagine you are the manager of a chemical manufacturing plant and have Kinally received the results of your organizations employee engagement survey. Holding your breath, you look for the numberthe number that speaks volumes about your employees ability to work together and tackle the issues affecting safety and productivity. You hope your intuition is wrong, but then your eyes and the number meet: more than 60% of your workforce is detached or disengaged. In late 2007 a chemical manufacturing plant with 285 employees had to face this reality. Management and staff were not on the same path, and their quality, safety, and productivity

Leaders Dont Motivate - They Create the Conditions for Self-Motivation

problems were the result of this divide. Results in hand, the plant manager addressed his team. We cannot go on this way. If we are to achieve sustainable success, we must transform our culture. Weve tried all the Band-Aids; applying one more is not the answer. Fueled by the organizations disappointing survey resultsthe majority of its workforce detachedthe management team embarked on a number of culture initiatives including: A Culture Survey Interviews with Key External Stakeholder Individual Employee Interviews Employee Focus Groups Review of Kinancial and production performance results, HR reports, and metrics from previous engagement surveys and safety performance data.

They understood that if they wanted to transform their companys culture, they needed to move from the tip of the iceberg to below the water line and into the heart of the iceberg. They needed to determine what factors were perpetuating the current culture of disengagement so they could transition to increased engagement and performance. Findings from the culture assessment process conKirmed that the low morale was indeed negatively affecting the plants ability to perform as efKiciently as employees, stakeholders, and managers believed was achievable. One employee, echoing the feelings of many of his coworkers and managers, stated, We have tremendous possibilities and potential, but we cant seem to Kind a way to make it all come together. Another added, We need to stop playing games and throwing safety program after safety program up against the wall hoping they will stick. The culture factors that emerged from assessments were: Alignment: To what extent are people involved in their organizations stated mission and its execution? Do they feel a sense of belonging within the organization? Accountability: Do people in the organization see themselves and others following through on commitments? Are they motivated, and do they take responsibility for their choices and the outcomes? Adaptability: Are people seeking change? Are they ready to adapt? Are they Klexible problem-solvers, open to innovation? Collaboration: How well do people interact with one another and share information? Do they solve problems together? Leadership: What level of commitment do employees have to their leaders? How do they perceive their leaders and leadership throughout the organization? Are people capable, competent, and worth following?

Leaders Dont Motivate - They Create the Conditions for Self-Motivation

Trust: Do people have a sense of faith and belief in the organization and its leaders? Can people rely on the integrity of their coworkers? Do they have conKidence in others abilities and intentions? Leaders Take Action: Walking the Talk The plant leaders were thoroughly debriefed on the Kindings of the assessment and afterward came to the consensus that the plants ability to thrive was dependent upon building a culture or engagement. They decided to concentrate their efforts on these factors: Alignment Accountability Collaboration Step One: Why Diagnosing, comprehending, and developing a plan to transition from one culture to another culture is not a process to be taken lightlyit is a journey, and all journeys encounter challenges (or icebergs). Therefore, leaders must make an informed commitment to the process. Meaning they must have a compelling why that resonates with the organization. Without a compelling purpose and a realistic understanding of the work and commitment required, the resolve and persistence required by employees to stay the course will dissolve. The leadership team undertook a new plant initiative: To work toward alignment with employees and their values in determining the compelling why that would propel the company forward. The result was the creation of the following Vision statement: Our vision is to create and sustain a great place to work where ... All employees can work safely and have pride in their jobs. Employees are treated with respect. Employees care about and trust one another. Leaders demonstrate open and honest communication. Everyone is accountable for his or her actions.
Diagram 1 illustrates the model and process that guided Step 1 and the entire culture transition process.

Leaders Dont Motivate - They Create the Conditions for Self-Motivation

Step Two: What Once the Vision statement was approved and shared throughout the plant, managers and employees embarked on a series of dialogue sessions. Using the Culture Transformation Model, they identiKied which concerns and issues were contributing to gaps between management and employees. The concerns were prioritized and plans of action were developed. Step Two included the organization addressing the culture factors of accountability and collaboration. Step Three: How How the management team implemented the actions identiKied in Step Two was a critical aspect of the culture transformation process. This process, it should be said, was not allowed to be based upon theories or models rooted in the belief that employees lack self- motivation and therefore require extrinsic motivation tools (e.g., carrots and sticks) to motivate change. In fact, employees repeatedly explained that their disengagement or detachment issues stemmed from a perception that management was distancing itself from the group by: Micromanaging Not keeping employees informed of company activities, Kinancial and otherwise Not allowing employees input into decisions, yet holding them accountable for the results Showing no respect, recognition, or appreciation Not empowering employees to make positive changes Showing a visible lack of faith and trust in employees commitment and abilities Rewarding employees with meaningless tokens, which they found insulting

Culture change, at its root, is intimately tied to individual change. Unless mangers are willing to commit to personal change, the organizations culture will remain resistant and frozen. Self-Determination Theory (SDT) The management team decided to use SDT as its boilerplate model for increased employee engagement. After an in-depth review of SDT processes, managers could see that employee motivation was the key to employee engagement. In addition, they began to understand the difference between viewing motivation from a quantity perspective and how to recognize it from a quality perspective.

Leaders Dont Motivate - They Create the Conditions for Self-Motivation

SDT consists of three core psychological needs: Autonomy: Concerns the experience of acting with a sense of volition, choice, and self- determination. Relatedness, or interpersonal connectedness: The experience of having satisfying, social, and supportive relationships Competence: The sense and feeling of competence at what one does. This also involves the belief that one has the ability to inKluence important outcomes. These three needs have been found to correspond with behavioral engagement, which is directly linked to higher levels of commitment, performance, persistence, initiative, and creativity. By framing, linking, and designing employee interactions and work procedures within the framework of SDTs needs and the organizations values and vision, the managers were able to demonstrate commitment and inKluence the attitudes, behavior, and motivation of their employees. Sample questions that guided the interactions of managers and employees: Are we permitting and encouraging employee autonomy? Will this approach improve and build our relationships with employees, or distance us? Are we recognizing, developing, and empowering our employees competencies? Are our interactions guided by the values of our vision?

Culture Change Results The graph (Detached Employees) displays the level of disengagement as assessed by employee surveys from 2006 through 2012. More than 60% of employees were described as detached in 2006. As the culture initiative was implemented, the rate of detached employees began to consistently decrease, hitting a low of 5% in the 2012 survey.

Engagement and Quality The graph (Quality Results Summary) indicates that as employee engagement improved, employee performance and quality dramatically improved also. The number of batches meeting speciKications increased, which a positive impact on increasing customer satisfaction and in reducing production costs.

Leaders Dont Motivate - They Create the Conditions for Self-Motivation

Engagement and Safety

The following graph clearly demonstrates the link between employee engagement and safety performance. It shows a 121Month,Rolling,Average,OSHA,Recordable,Per,Hour,Worked, consistent decline in OSHA recordables with only minor Kluctuations. This trend replicates the positive progression in employee engagement. As the changes in the culture took hold and more employees transitioned to feelings of engagement, the number of OSHA recordables also declined.
0.000016" 0.000014" 0.000012"
12MRA/Hours,Worked,

0.00001"

0.000008" 0.000006" 0.000004" 0.000002" 0"

1)08"

3)08"

5)08"

7)08"

9)08"

1)09"

3)09"

5)09"

7)09"

9)09"

1)11"

3)11"

5)11"

7)11"

11)08"

11)09"

11)10"

9)11"

11)11"

11)12"

1)10"

3)10"

5)10"

7)10"

9)10"

1)12"

3)12"

5)12"

7)12"

9)12"

1)13"

3)13"

5)13"

Another signiKicant indicator of employee engagements positive impact on safety is the signiKicant increase of reported near-misses the organization is experiencing as a result of the changes. In a culture in which employees mistrust the motivations of management, and in which punitive actions are used as a means of reinforcement and motivation, near-miss reporting tends to be viewed as a got-cha by employees. The last graph shows that as the culture factors that created detachment changed, more employees became engaged, their trust in management increased, and therefore their willingness to report near-misses also increased.

7)13"

Leaders Dont Motivate - They Create the Conditions for Self-Motivation

Summary Altering organizational culture is a difKicult and complex task. Most organizations prefer to stay on the tip of the iceberg and attempt to spark change by installing the program of the quarter or motivating with carrots and sticks.

Incidents)Reported)Per)Hour)Worked)
0.0003" 0.00025" 0.0002" 0.00015" Near"Miss/hour"

Non7Near"Miss/hour" However, sustainable change can 0.0001" only take place if leaders are willing 0.00005" to dive below the surface and 0" explore the heart of the iceberg 2007" 2008" 2009" 2010" 2011" 2012" 2013" because this is where true drivers of culture exist. Here lies an interlocking set of employee goals, roles, processes, values, communication practices, attitudes, assumptions, and beliefs, all of which will resist half-hearted attempts of transformation.

These elements propel your employees beliefs about the organization, and if negatively inKluenced they will work tirelessly to prevent or subvert any attempt at long-term change. This is why single-Kix changessuch as the introduction of teams, or Lean, or safety programsmay appear to brieKly make progress, but eventually the interlocking elements of the organizational culture take over and any attempts at change are inexorably swallowed by the existing organizational culture. Despite the difKiculty and complications inherent in organizational change, the results and rewards, as this organization is experiencing, are signiKicant, far-reaching, and sustainable.