I got this from here, which is in turn from here. (HubSpot is the first one; OfficeVibe is the second one.) The whole infographic is featured below, but take a look at the one above. Basically all your employees (98 percent, rounded up, is 100 percent) will fail to be engaged when managers give little or no feedback. Failure to engage = half-assed work projects. Yes, you’ll probably still make money because someone out there will buy your products (er, or something else), but you’ll be flipping people a lot and you’ll be leaving money on the table. It’s not an ideal situation.
This is a huge, near-and-dear issue to me. I blog about it a lot. To wit:
- The job search process and feedback
- Try to give feedback regularly at work…
- … even though it’s hard
- The tie between leadership and feedback
- 360-degree feedback is the same thing as a concentration camp
- “Accountability” and “confidentiality” are often at cross-purposes
All comes back to this, from OfficeVibe:
The tayloristic approach is to give employees the task and expect them to succeed. They do the same thing over and over and the paycheck is the reward. No questions asked.
However, we have advanced in workplaces since the early 1900’s. Labor and productivity has increased, but unfortunately, happiness and communication between management, has been on the decline, till now.
That’s been questioned a bit recently, yes (“thought leaders” and others), but the core problem is that most people with decision-making authority in companies right now are Boomers/Silents trying to hang on and get out with their retirement mint. They could care less about “feedback,” which is a fluffy issue that they never demanded as they were slogging up the chain. They’re just hoping to get out intact before the revolution tips in the favor of the next generation.
Here’s the full infographic. What’s your take? Soft, fluffy issue? Or something we should actually focus on?
The part you wrote about Boomers/Silents just trying to hold on and basically “coast” a little longer to secure retirement is an excellent observation. I’d also add that their inability and/or preference not to go ahead and “exit gracefully” is a large impetus for the recent trend of companies hiring/exploring for “innovation” positions. It’s really a passive-aggressive nudge to the seasoned and stodgy among us that creates yet another layer of bureaucracy that gets in the way of its own supposed objectives.
In the bigger picture, the idea is silly to me because a true innovator is a person who is most likely inherently entrepreneurial and would never be caught in some job labeled “Innovation Strategist/Specialist/Whatever.” True innovators create businesses/things instead of relegating themselves to some administrative tail-chasing and perfunctory set of job “duties” in a job description.