In the 80s and early 90s, one used to see a lot of advertisements from Tata Consultancy Services. The company went after engineers who jumped bond and joined an employer in the US. Advertisement in papers, court cases and summons sent to parents were all part of a strategy to threaten potential quitters as well as recoup as much cost as possible from the absconders. This incidentally was very different from the paternalistic, employee welfare orientation that was characteristic of Tata in general. TCS strengths as an employer became more visible, when they aligned their culture with the larger Tata group philosophy.
There is excellent literature on becoming a best employer, but traditional HR approach has focused heavily on the trees. Sadly, the reliance on best practices has also created the confusion. Everyone provides quality of life, freebies, celebrations and increases. However, that keeps everyone clustered around a median. To engage then, requires us to look at the problem from a higher level.
In my view, there are a few models of engagement. Let us take a typical Indian manufacturing firm. It is usually managed by a family/ founder. By choice, the founder uses a welfare based approach. Provide amenities, take care in a crisis, and engage with the family. As long as this is done well, the employee is willing to forego a bit of operational freedom and the founder does not push individual excellence too far. There is job security as long as one does not rock the boat. Employees get canteen food, company transport, and Diwali gift and so on. A company like TVS, when starting a project first fixes the accommodation for engineers and medical facilities before launching work. Even today, the expectation of employees across the country across all demographics assume paternalistic welfare at its heart.
Such founder led models are common worldwide. Look at any Great Place to work, from Microsoft to Google and you will find the personal touch of a founding group and their philosophies. (Larry Page wants food available at 10 feet from any employee?). Two other elements evolved from this.
First, the impact of the personal values of the founder. On the bizarre side, it might result in Disney employees being clean shaven, but on the other side the HP way was a shining example of an organization practicing a culture of approachability and egalitarianism. Then, Microsoft added a strong flavor of wealth creation for its employees.
This became the second model. A set of eccentric people start up something and offer an informal culture and perks for you to give your best. In return, they could make you a millionaire by 35! The better start-ups were like a premier club, where membership is by invitation only. A start-up over a period of time becomes a founder led welfare oriented company, a little less exciting but still very good to work in. Intel, Cisco, Microsoft all fall into this category.
The third model has its roots in Wall Street. Not for sissies. Very clearly, a culture that has winner takes all and dog eat dog aggression at its heart. Does not bother too much about longevity, engagement and all nice stuff. Make money, earn exceedingly well and enjoy. This aligns well with American individualism and has its backers. In India of course, it has been difficult to transplant the cash compensation oriented culture. One would rather align and comply for incremental benefits, than take a bet on oneself and make it big.
Professionally managed companies form the fourth model. These are companies with a long history and where the approach is not set by founders. Often, they have long serving CEOs who set the norms and it is dependent on his/her approach to employees that determines whether it is welfare oriented company or not. GE for example went from a paternalistic approach to a diluted Wall Street approach with normalization and other efficiency measures. However, the company is now focusing more on innovation and putting up a gentler face. This is the operating model for a lot of companies; GE, IBM, HP, L&T, Unilever, ITC and so on. There is always an efficiency/ engagement trade-off.
A variant of the professional model is the “Golden Cage” model. You just pay so well, that it becomes difficult for anyone to think of leaving. Employee experience may not be consistent, but given the pay even a dissenter only becomes passive-aggressive. Product company captives use this model in India.
The biggest successes are companies that blend more than one paradigm.
Microsoft: Take the HP paradigm of egalitarianism and add wealth generation to it. Throw in college like campuses for variety.
Google: Take Microsoft approach, but orient it around doing no evil. Refine on benefits like campus food but at the same time, put more emphasis on research, like academia.
Infosys of yore: Take the Indian welfare model and blend it to the egalitarian wealth generation of the US.
Of late, there is a lot of literature on engagement and attempts to solve it at the level of individual employee or the manager. That has in turn led to a proliferation of practices. One on ones with manager? tick; Annual Day? tick. 360 feedback? Tick. Small group interaction with CEO? Tick.
But all these do not add to any noticeable impact on engagement. At least in Indian IT services, the ethos are still paternalistic. We will have normal curve, but everyone will get 100% payout; we will do Job evaluation, but have phantom grades. This duality has been strengthened by the fact that the companies, who really tried to become efficiency plays or dilute Wall Street clones, have not been successful.
Summary? Be clear about what is the chronological evolution and business situation of the company. Then align your engagement programs accordingly. Philosophical clarity is more important than operational correlation. Do you want to go all out and create loyalty for today? Or you want to be an adequate provider so that you may never have to pull back popular benefits?
Unless you have that clarity, what is the point of being unbelievably busy rolling out and tracking programs? Please see the topical article here. While everyone runs their heads off, the best actually walk and figure out their moves! http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2014/07/lionel_messi_2014_world_cup_the_world_s_best_player_has_figured_out_how.html
hr3by2 