Money's Nice, But a Good Boss is Better

Today's Washington Post details the results of a recent survey of federal workplaces. I love the title of the article -- "Money's Nice, But a Good Boss is Better." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/19/AR2009051903621.html

Of course, some federal departments in the employee survey fared better than others. Here's what the article has to say about the difference between the departments with high morale and those where employees are miserable:

"What separates these agencies in the minds of their employees is often the senior leadership, how well or poorly it shares information with subordinates, and the training and opportunities it provides workers, according to the study of federal survey results by the Partnership for Public Service, a nonpartisan group devoted to improving public service. "

The study also found that workers valued communication and straight answers from the boss more than pay and benefits! This research validates organizational studies we have been a part of and reiterates a central theme of life: everything rises and falls on leadership.

Every improvement tactic and strategy, to be effective in your company, will have to be role-modeled by the leaders first. The best gift you can give your employees is a great boss.

Google's Approach to Higher Turnover, Lower Engagement

According to an article in today's WSJ(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124269038041932531.html#mod=djemTMB?mg=com-wsj), the leadership at Google is concerned over the loss of staff members to newer start-ups like Twitter and Facebook and also over what seems to be a lessening of employee engagement in the company.

So their response? "The Internet search giant recently began crunching data from employee reviews and promotion and pay histories in a mathematical formula Google says can identify which of its 20,000 employees are most likely to quit. Google officials are reluctant to share details of the formula, which is still being tested. The inputs include information from surveys and peer reviews, and Google says the algorithm already has identified employees who felt underused, a key complaint among those who contemplate leaving.

I have my doubts about the effectiveness or appropriateness of a tool like this. Wouldn't equipping leaders at Google to get to know their people and spend time with them to see if they are fully engaged and/or at risk of leaving be a better approach?

In our book, "Ordinary Greatness," we talk about the need for leaders to have "aspirational conversations" with staff to get to know them better and to see if the work they are doing is fulfilling and meaningful. Give me that over an algorithm any day.

What do you think?