# data[].attributes.body
A good breakdown of Fayol's 14 principles of management.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This article explains the administrative theory of the 14 Principles of Management by Henri Fayol in a practical way. After reading you will understand the basics of this powerful management tool.

Introduction 14 principles of Management

In the last century, organizations already had to deal with management in practice.

In the early 1900s, large organizations, such as production factories, had to be managed too.

At the time there were only few (external) management tools, models and methods available.

Thanks to scientists like Henri Fayol (1841-1925) the first foundations were laid for modern scientific management.

These first concepts, also called principles of management are the underlying factors for successful management.

Henri Fayol explored this comprehensively and, as a result, he synthesized the 14 principles of management.

Henri Fayol 's principles of management and research were published in the book 'General and Industrial Management' (1916).

14 Principles of Management

14 principles of Management are statements that are based on a fundamental truth.

These principles of management serve as a guideline for decision-making and management actions.

They are drawn up by means of observations and analyses of events that managers encounter in practice.

Henri Fayol was able to synthesize 14 principles of management after years of study, namely:

1. Division of Work

In practice, employees are specialized in different areas and they have different skills.

Different levels of expertise can be distinguished within the knowledge areas (from generalist to specialist).

Personal and professional developments support this.

According to Henri Fayol specialization promotes efficiency of the workforce and increases productivity.

In addition, the specialization of the workforce increases their accuracy and speed.

This management principle of the 14 principles of management is applicable to both technical and managerial activities.

2. Authority and Responsibility

In order to get things done in an organization, management has the authority to give orders to the employees. Of course with this authority comes responsibility.

According to Henri Fayol, the accompanying power or authority gives the management the right to give orders to the subordinates.

The responsibility can be traced back from performance and it is therefore necessary to make agreements about this.

In other words, authority and responsibility go together and they are two sides of the same coin.

3. Discipline

This third principle of the 14 principles of management is about obedience. It is often a part of the core values of a mission and vision in the form of good conduct and respectful interactions.

This management principle is essential and is seen as the oil to make the engine of an organization run smoothly.

4. Unity of Command

The management principle 'Unity of command' means that an individual employee should receive orders from one manager and that the employee is answerable to that manager.

If tasks and related responsibilities are given to the employee by more than one manager, this may lead to confusion which may lead to possible conflicts for employees.

By using this principle, the responsibility for mistakes can be established more easily.

5. Unity of Direction

This management principle of the 14 principles of management is all about focus and unity. All employees deliver the same activities that can be linked to the same objectives.

All activities must be carried out by one group that forms a team. These activities must be described in a plan of action.

The manager is ultimately responsible for this plan and he monitors the progress of the defined and planned activities.

Focus areas are the efforts made by the employees and coordination.

6. Subordination of Individual Interest

There are always all kinds of interests in an organization. In order to have an organization function well, Henri Fayol indicated that personal interests are subordinate to the interests of the organization (ethics).

The primary focus is on the organizational objectives and not on those of the individual.

This applies to all levels of the entire organization, including the managers.

7. Remuneration

Motivation and productivity are close to one another as far as the smooth running of an organization is concerned.

This management principle of the 14 principles of management argues that the remuneration should be sufficient to keep employees motivated and productive.

There are two types of remuneration namely non-monetary (a compliment, more responsibilities, credits) and monetary (compensation, bonus or other financial compensation).

Ultimately, it is about rewarding the efforts that have been made.

8. The Degree of Centralization

Management and authority for decision-making process must be properly balanced in an organization.

This depends on the volume and size of an organization including its hierarchy.

Centralization implies the concentration of decision making authority at the top management (executive board). Sharing of authorities for the decision-making process with lower levels (middle and lower management), is referred to as decentralization by Henri Fayol.

Henri Fayol indicated that an organization should strive for a good balance in this.

9. Scalar Chain

Hierarchy presents itself in any given organization. This varies from senior management (executive board) to the lowest levels in the organization.

Henri Fayol 's "hierarchy" management principle states that there should be a clear line in the area of authority (from top to bottom and all managers at all levels).

This can be seen as a type of management structure. Each employee can contact a manager or a superior in an emergency situation without challenging the hierarchy.

Especially, when it concerns reports about calamities to the immediate managers/superiors.

According to this principle of the 14 principles of management, employees in an organization must have the right resources at their disposal so that they can function properly in an organization.

In addition to social order (responsibility of the managers) the work environment must be safe, clean and tidy.

The management principle of equity often occurs in the core values of an organization.

According to Henri Fayol, employees must be treated kindly and equally.

Employees must be in the right place in the organization to do things right.

Managers should supervise and monitor this process and they should treat employees fairly and impartially.

12. Stability of Tenure of Personnel

This management principle of the 14 principles of management represents deployment and managing of personnel and this should be in balance with the service that is provided from the organization.

Management strives to minimize employee turnover and to have the right staff in the right place.

Focus areas such as frequent change of position and sufficient development must be managed well.

13. Initiative

Henri Fayol argued that with this management principle employees should be allowed to express new ideas.

This encourages interest and involvement and creates added value for the company.

Employee initiatives are a source of strength for the organization according to Henri Fayol.

This encourages the employees to be involved and interested.

14. Esprit de Corps

The management principle 'esprit de corps' of the 14 principles of management stands for striving for the involvement and unity of the employees.

Managers are responsible for the development of morale in the workplace; individually and in the area of communication.

Esprit de corps contributes to the development of the culture and creates an atmosphere of mutual trust and understanding.

In conclusion on the 14 Principles of management

The 14 principles of management can be used to manage organizations and are useful tools for forecasting, planning, process management, organization management, decision-making, coordination and control.

Although they are obvious, many of these matters are still used based on common sense in current management practices in organizations.

It remains a practical list with focus areas that are based on Henri Fayol 's research which still applies today due to a number of logical principles.

It's Your Turn

What do you think? What are the (14) principles of management of today's management? Do these management principles work in every organization or are there exceptions? And if so, what are the exceptions and what can we learn from them?

Share your experience and knowledge in the comments box below.

If you liked this article, then please subscribe to our Free Newsletter for the latest posts on Management models and methods. You can also find us on Facebook and Google+.
More information

1. Fayol, H. (1917). General and Industrial Management. Dunod et E. Pinat.

2. Hodge, B. J. (2002). Organization theory: a strategic approach. Pearson Education.

3. Wren, D. A. , Bedeian, A. G. , Breeze, J. D. (2002). The foundations of Henri Fayol's administrative theory. Management Decision, Vol. 40 Iss: 9, pp.906 - 918 state: It was not until the Storr's translation that Fayol's (1949) Administration Industrielle et Générale reached a wider audience, especially in the USA and established Fayol as a major authority on management.

How to cite this article:
Van Vliet, V. (2009). 14 Principles of Management (Fayol). Retrieved [insert date] from ToolsHero: https://www.toolshero.com/management/14-principles-of-management/

Add a link to this page on your website:
<a href="https://www.toolshero.com/management/14-principles-of-management/">ToolsHero.com: 14 Principles of Management (Fayol)</a>

Did you find this article interesting?
Your rating is more than welcome or share this article via Social media!

You need to enable JavaScript to vote

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
14 Principles of Management by Henri Fayol, an administrative theory | ToolsHero

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This article explains the administrative theory of the 14 Principles of Management by Henri Fayol in a practical way. After reading you will understand the basics of this powerful management tool. In the last century, organizations already had to deal with management in practice.

# data[].attributes.body
5 Skills for effective managers: Honesty, Diplomacy, Time Management, Delegation, and Team Building

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Being a good manager isn't just about knowing the ins and outs of a specific business, or being in the same industry for a certain number of years. There are some innate skills that separate good managers from those who are simply mediocre.

If you're vying for a manager position, or looking to do better in your current supervisory role, here are a few skills to hone.

1. Honesty

It's hard for employees to respect a boss they don't trust. That's why it pays to be as transparent as possible with the people who report to you. This means giving straightforward feedback and addressing employee concerns head-on without beating around the bush.

Say an employee comes to you wondering why he didn't get a raise as expected. If you feed him a line about budget cuts when, in fact, other workers have been getting pay increases, you'll come off as deceitful.

On the other hand, if you offer up a legitimate, candid reason behind the decision, that employee might still be a bit miffed, but at least he'll respect you for being honest. You'll also be giving him an opportunity to improve, which will benefit both him and the entire team.

2. Diplomacy

Workplace clashes are often inevitable. Whether it's two members of your team butting heads over how to handle a project or another manager infringing on your turf, avoiding on-the-job conflict is easier said than done. But it's how you handle those scenarios that will set you apart as a strong manager.

If you address the parties involved with respect and help them come to a compromise, you're more likely to come out ahead in the long run than you are if you push your own agenda. Similarly, if you're dealing with a conflict between two direct reports, you're better off mediating without actively taking sides so that you don't anger either party. It's not always easy to be diplomatic in a tense situation, but the more level-headed and respectful you come off, the better you'll maintain your relationships with those around you.

3. Time management

Given that there are only so many hours in a workday, it's natural for certain tasks or obligations to fall by the wayside. This especially holds true for managers, who are the most apt to get sucked into productivity-zapping meetings. A good manager, however, will know how to maximize his or her time so that the things that should take priority ultimately get done on schedule. Along these lines, strong managers are those who know how to stay focused and organized, even when pulled in what seems like a dozen different directions.

This requires the ability to say "no" to tasks that will distract you from more important objectives. You might take a cue from Warren Buffett, one of the greatest corporate leaders of our time, and put all lower-priority tasks on an "avoid at all costs" list.

4. Delegation

If you're a manager, there's a reason you have multiple employees reporting to you. Getting the job done is often a team effort, but if you're the type who needs to have a hand in every task that gets done or decision that gets made, you'll lose sight of the big picture -- and annoy your reports with your micromanaging. A good manager knows when to delegate and when to step in directly.

Remember, delegating responsibilities to other people doesn't make you lazy; it makes you efficient. As long as you know when it's appropriate to relinquish control, doing so could free up time in your schedule for more important responsibilities -- namely, things your direct reports may not be in a position to do themselves.

5. Team-building

Nothing keeps employees going like working together toward a common goal. One final thing that distinguishes the best managers from lesser leaders is the ability to keep a team motivated -- not only to do the best possible job, but also to have each other's backs.

Of course, creating this sort of environment often boils down to hiring the right group of people in the first place, but even once you've developed a strong team, your work doesn't stop there. Team-building needs to be an evolving, perpetual process, and if you're good at it, you're more likely to retain strong employees and deliver better results on a whole.

Related links:

* Motley Fool Issues Rare Triple-Buy Alert

* This Stock Could Be Like Buying Amazon in 1997

* 7 of 8 People Are Clueless About This Trillion-Dollar Market

Not everyone is born a leader. Becoming a strong manager often takes time, especially if some of these skills don't come naturally. But now that you know what it takes to be an effective manager, you can focus on specific areas of improvement and move forward from there.

CNNMoney (New York) First published July 19, 2017: 11:16 AM ET

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5 skills the most effective managers have

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If you're vying for a manager position, or looking to do better in your current supervisory role, here are a few skills to hone. 1. Honesty It's hard for employees to respect a boss they don't trust. That's why it pays to be as transparent as possible with the people who report to you.

# data[].attributes.body
Steve Jobs about Apple, “The reason we’ve been able to create products like this is because we’ve tried to be at the intersection of technology and liberal arts.”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Steve Jobs has always been considered an anomaly in management; his leadership style was something to admire or to criticize, but definitely not to replicate. He did not fit into the frameworks of business textbooks: there was orthodox management, and then there was Steve Jobs.

The reason why institutional management theories have always looked at his style as an exception is that he was navigating a territory that is often obscure to management: the creation of meaning, both for customers and employees.

He put people at the center. Which does not imply that he gave users what they wanted, nor that he created a flat playful organization where ideas flew from the bottom up. Apple's approach to innovation is definitely not user-driven: it does not listen to users, but makes proposals to them. And narrations on Jobs's leadership style tells of a vertical, top-down approach, often harsh. At new product launches, he, not the team, was the protagonist.

"Managing by meaning" is recognizing that people are human: they have rational, cultural, and emotional dimensions, and they appreciate the person who creates a meaning for them to embrace. We know customers do not buy Apple's product simply because of utility or functionality; people are even prone to forgive some of Apple's technical limitations in exchange for great design - and identity. For Jobs, design was not only beauty, but creating new meanings for users.

Jobs was constantly driven by the search for products that made more sense to people. And Apple has been a champion in creating new product meanings: the iMac G3, released in 1998, with his colorful translucent materials inspired by modern households products, changed the meaning of computers from office objects to home devices; the iPod plus the iTunes application and store created a new meaning in the world of music - accessibility - by making it easier to search, discover, buy, listen to, and organize music wherever a customer was; the iPhone turned the meaning of smart phones from objects for business to objects of social entertainment. These products where not necessarily best in class in terms of performance, but they were more meaningful to users.

Jobs also offered meaning to his employees. It is known that Apple's employees worked hard on visionary projects, striving to meet targets and to satisfy their leader's maniacal attention to detail. Jobs infused them with a sense of mission. Apple had to leave a mark in the world of computing, improve people's lives, be bold and, of course, "think different."

Experts and academics in business schools have often dismissed this approach as the outcome of the unique personality of Steve Jobs. A kind of "guru process," as a colleague once told me. Nothing to be considered as a role model. The reason is that institutional management is rooted into analytics, engineering, and the social sciences. Jobs had no disdain for these, but meaning is connected to other, more slippery territories: culture and the humanities, which unfortunately business schools hardly master. During an interview, Jobs stated that "The only problem with Microsoft is that they absolutely just have no taste. I mean that in the big way. [...] They don't bring much culture into their product. Proportionally spaced fonts come from typesetting and beautiful books." And in 2010, during his keynote for the launch of the iPad, he said, "The reason we've been able to create products like this is because we've tried to be at the intersection of technology and liberal arts."

Institutional management is scared by culture and the humanities. They are not measurable and cannot be codified in processes. They depend on the person. What Jobs taught us is that managers are people before being managers. They have a personal vision of the world, painstakingly developed through years of research and exploration in life. Why should manager forget about culture? No method, tools and process can give you the capability to create meaning, to create visions. Only your personal culture, that no one can imitate, can.

Jobs showed that business and culture are not in contradiction, but rather they sustain each other. Isn't it time to consider this as a model instead of an anomaly? Can't Jobs become institutional and "management by meaning" become a core chapter in the future textbooks of management?
For more commentary, see our special section The Legacy of Steve Jobs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Steve Jobs has always been considered an anomaly in management; his leadership style was something to admire or to criticize, but definitely not to replicate. He did not fit into the frameworks of business textbooks: there was orthodox management, and then there was Steve Jobs.

# data[].attributes.body
" The corporate young shouldn't be so corporate as their seniors and certainly shouldn't be boring. But everybody loses if they live and work in a boring business led by boring managers."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Management has never been generally thought of as an exciting or thrilling activity. But this is mostly due to ignorance. Only a small proportion of people have direct experience of what's involved in management, what managers are like, and the enormous difference effective management styles can make in the world.

You would have expected the excitement quotient to have risen in the 20th and 21st centuries. After all, management is the consolidation of opportunity - and there can be no argument with the proposition that the number and scale of opportunities have risen with a speed and power that managers must surely follow.

However, these five words from Gary Hamel strike at the heart of management today: "Management is out of date." Hamel goes on to explain that "like the combustion engine, [management is] a technology that has largely stopped evolving, and that's not good."

When a management guru with the respect and reputation of Hamel makes such a statement, it's time to sit up and take notice. It's also time to be concerned.

The obsolescence of contemporary management styles, Hamel argues, results from a lack of meaningful evolution. Managers are failing to take advantage of a unique moment in history, the point where the gathering pace of change opens the door to revolution, to new types and methods of organisation.

So brilliantly fast is the pace of change that new product generations are being completed when earlier ones are being launched. And when it comes to people, you can't wait around for novices to learn the ropes. They work in a new climate of speed, early achievement and fast tracking that is way ahead of the traditional method of slow and steady movement towards the top.

The tenets of the new management shouldn't be hard to grasp and exploit. However, if you look for evidence of widespread adoption of new technology to pioneer and establish new management styles, what do you find?

The example of contacting a company for customer service shows gross neglect. Surely everyone must know the sad reality of what now passes for customer service.

Even if you're lucky enough to find the right e-mail, telephone number or even department, getting a human being to speak to you is nigh-on impossible. Instead you are confronted with a hellish loop of inexpert automation.

All the more frustrating is that this is one area of mismanagement which directors can discover at ease by simply picking up their telephones and going through the same terrible experience as their customers.

But it's a long-standing and unspoken tradition of management that you shouldn't sample your own products or processes; presumably because learning the truth might force you into devoting time and money in order to improve the operation.

Like the majority of men and women, as they age most managers get evermore unwilling to learn new lessons, master new practices and practise what they preach. That's bad news for them, and equally bad news for the people whom they lead - or attempt to lead.

Change in society is being matched by generational change inside the organisation. The corporate young shouldn't be so corporate as their seniors and certainly shouldn't be boring. But everybody loses if they live and work in a boring business led by boring managers.

Great prizes can be won if management styles can keep up with the pace of change - not least the satisfaction of being neither bored nor boring, but instead leading a new era.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Management has never been generally thought of as an exciting or thrilling activity. But this is mostly due to ignorance. Only a small proportion of people have direct experience of what's involved in management, what managers are like, and the enormous difference effective management styles can make in the world.

# data[].attributes.body
Benefits of Gender Equality: Varied Viewpoints, Strengthen Communication, Foster Positive Work Environment, Taking Care of Employees, Gain Good Reputation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Especially in a small business, each and every employee significantly impacts how your business garners success. Even if you only add one new male employee to your team, he will be able to bring to the table something that no one else has. The more variety in perspectives and ways of thinking you have, the more benefits you will see within the workplace, such as:

1. Varied Viewpoints: Having a rich and varied mixture of skills, talents and strengths makes for all kinds of otherwise unexplored mental territory, and men and women bring different things to the table. For example, women have an incredible way of improving workplace functionality by supporting, collaborating with, rewarding and inspiring coworkers, making for a stimulating and creative environment. While men can certainly be good team players too, they are often able to bring in a pragmatic element with strength in analyzing, influencing and delegating tasks within the workplace.

2. Strengthen Communication: One of the biggest differences between men and women is revealed through the ways in which we communicate. And as any business owner knows, strong communication skills among your employees is essential to maintaining success. Both genders need to be able to clearly express their needs, ideas and concerns in a safe and open environment. This is where differences in communication come into play. Men are typically better at communicating issues and tackling confrontation, whereas women are more culturally influenced to work as peacemakers and try to solve an issue internally first. Both means of communication and conflict resolution are essential, and one would not work without the other.

3. Foster a Positive Work Environment: No matter the field your business is in, a work environment where employees feel valued and respected by each other is going to make for an all-around better workplace for everyone. With a diverse group of men and women from different backgrounds, your employees will notice strengths and talents in their coworkers that they don't encompass themselves, and it's very likely that this appreciation for differences will stimulate an environment where everyone respects one another. This makes for a team better equipped to handle conflict when it inevitably arises, and a safe environment where all feel valued makes for improved company morale as well as increased job performance.

4. Take Care of Employees, and They'll Take Care of You: Speaking of improved job performance, it's no surprise that workers produce better quality work when they are taken care of and feel comfortable, trusted and safe. To get the highest quality of work, provide an environment where people are judged based on the work they do, not their background, race or gender. Allowing both men and women to feel valued as people will enhance the workplace immensely. The kind of nurturing environment you supply for your employees will have a positive ripple effect on both job satisfaction and performance.

5. Gain a Great Reputation: Along with team members feeling appreciated by and respectful toward their coworkers, increased gender equality and diversity within the workplace really skyrockets your company's reputation to the outside world. People with similar values will want to work both with you and for you based off on the harmonious workplace you've nurtured. Unfair and discriminatory work environments make it hard for employers to create the highest-functioning, most productive workplace. But equal treatment, opportunity and reward make for happy employees, which makes for better business and a better reputation for your brand. Clients, community and customers will want to be a part of what you've created.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Five Huge Benefits of Gender Equality in Your Business

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Especially in a small business, each and every employee significantly impacts how your business garners success. Even if you only add one new male employee to your team, he will be able to bring to the table something that no one else has.

# data[].attributes.body
Female Managers outperform males because of certain skills.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In a Gallup report based on over four decades of research, including the analysis of 27 million employees' responses, female managers outperform their male counterparts when it comes to driving employee engagement. Gallup defines engaged employees as those who are involved in, enthusiastic about, and committed to their work and workplace.

Regarding the day-to-day practical evidence, the study found that if you reported to a female manager, you were more likely to reply "yes" to the following statements:

"There is someone at work who encourages my development."

"In the last six months, someone has talked to me about my progress."

"In the last seven days, I have received recognition or praise for doing good work."

Why is this such a big deal? The main reason is that 87 percent of employees worldwide report being disengaged at work. On the flip side, companies that have engaged employees outperform their peers by 147 percent in earnings per share. That's a lot of uncapitalized potential.

Let's take a look at the four components of employee engagement that gave women an advantage over their male colleagues.

1. Setting basic expectations.

One of the quickest ways to create confusion and stifle productivity is to be ambiguous about expectations. A major indicator of an engaged employee is ownership over one's role, and it's awfully difficult to take control without baseline responsibilities. To ensure that your employee is crystal clear about their position, make sure you:

1. Have a job description review and discuss areas of importance, key contributions (what tasks affect others), the potential for impact and areas of accountability.

2. Lay out the consequences, in a friendly manner, and be consistent. This includes both the positive and negative side-effects of your employee's performance.

3. Establish clear metrics, key performance indicators, and behavior standards. Everyone wants to understand how they will be evaluated.

4. Clarify areas where your employee can be autonomous.

5. Ensure all process-based capabilities are handed down, a.k.a. department "know-how", training, and standard operating procedures.

Word to the wise, be careful about assigning accountability without authority. It's frustrating, as an employee, to be held accountable for something you can't manage or make a decision on.

2. Building relationships.

Great managers understand engagement is an outcome of meaningful relationships. What constitutes a meaningful relationship? Here are some of the top characteristics, as defined by the Mind Tools Editorial Team.

Trust --If you could pick a cornerstone for a good relationship, trust would definitely be the best option. It enables employees to be open, honest, and transparent. You'd be surprised how much energy employees can conserve (and redeploy) by not having to constantly watch their back and question everything they say/do.

Mutual Respect -- You can't expect respect without giving it first. We must value everyone's thoughts, ideas, and input. Then, it will be much easier to develop solutions based on collective insight -- a key to engaging your employees in your vision and mission. People don't take direction and learn from those whom they don't respect.

Mindfulness -- We must take responsibility for our own actions, words, emotions (or lack thereof), and the effects they can have on those around us. Employees are products of their environments. Make sure you're mindful of the one you're creating.

Welcoming Diversity -- "People with good relationships not only accept diverse people and opinions, but they welcome them. For instance, when your friends and colleagues offer different opinions from yours, you take the time to consider what they have to say, and factor their insights into your decision making." (Mind Tools)

Open Communication -- This one is pretty simple: the more we communicate with our employees, the richer our relationships will be.

3. Encouraging a positive team environment.

In efforts to automate and systematize our work, we've become obsessed with computing outcomes and collecting data to drive decisions. Don't get me wrong, data is necessary and there is definitely a place for it, but it does not replace the need for leadership.

Unfortunately, this obsession with measuring throughput and efficiency has created mechanistic management crutches. News flash: people don't thrive in standardized environments. Our employees are naturally different and diverse. Forcing them to conform stifles creativity and limits leaders to the role of a delivery system. Instead, focus on creating a human system, one that is characterized by team harmony, respect and caring for employees' welfare. Then, watch as these humanistic conditions unearth your employees' engagement.

4. Providing employees with opportunities to develop within their careers.

The feeling of stagnation is terrifying. Help your employees stay relevant and challenged by investing in their development. If you don't, others will.

It may seem like engagement is just another buzzword that HR departments throw around to create more work for managers. However, this Gallup report proves that higher levels of engagement produce higher-performing teams.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
40 Years of Research Proves Women Are Better Managers Than Men Because They Tend to Have This Crucial Skill

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In a Gallup report based on over four decades of research, including the analysis of 27 million employees' responses, female managers outperform their male counterparts when it comes to driving employee engagement. Gallup defines engaged employees as those who are involved in, enthusiastic about, and committed to their work and workplace.

# data[].attributes.body
Excellent article on Brazil's beef industry and protecting the rain forest.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Humanity has an urgent need to fight climate change, and businesses can play a key role in doing so. But we recognize that, in many businesses, resources are often allocated according to short-term, bottom-line pressures. We thus wanted to figure out a way to help executives quantify the financial benefits of reducing their firm's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

We chose Brazil's beef industry as the location of our case study, both for the size and complexity of the industry and for its impact on the planet. We found that sustainable and deforestation-free practices created significant financial benefits for all players in the industry's value chain.

Specifically, our analysis found that the net benefits to ranchers ranged from $18 million to $34 million (12% to 23% of revenues) in net present value projected over 10 years. For slaughterhouses and retailers (Brazilian operations), we also projected positive benefits: $20 million to $120 million (0.01% to 0.1% of revenues) and $13 million to $62 million (0.01% to 0.7% of revenues). These ranges were wide due to the relative size of the different players in the supply chain (for example, a company that has higher revenues will realize greater benefits than a smaller firm). Nonetheless, the case study demonstrates that measuring the value of sustainable business can be done, and that sustainable business itself can be cost-effective. We hope this will serve as a powerful motivator to improve leaders' decision making and bring sustainable business practices further into the mainstream.

Brazil's Beef Industry

Brazil is the world's biggest beef exporter, with 19.6% of the world market, and the second-largest beef producer and consumer. The industry makes up approximately 6% of Brazil's GDP. But the impact of the industry on Brazil's natural resources - and global GHG emissions - has been intense. From 1993 to 2013 the cattle herd in the Brazilian Amazon rain forest - covering most of country's northern region - expanded by nearly 200%, to more than 60 million head. During this period, over 300,000 sq km of forest (an area about the size of Italy) was cleared, much of it for ranching. Deforestation causes up to 10% of global GHG emissions (trees store carbon, which reduces GHG emissions, and release carbon when they are cut or burned), and reducing deforestation is one of the cheaper and easier ways to tackle global climate change goals.

Nearly 450 companies around the world have committed to reducing or eliminating deforestation from their supply chains, including many in the beef industry. We set about investigating the financial costs and benefits of the uptake of sustainable and deforestation-free beef by ranchers, slaughterhouses, and retailers in Brazil. Quantifying sustainability efforts is often viewed as challenging, given limited data availability, the time and costs involved to conduct credible analysis, and the lack of widespread experience with this approach. Our research has found that embedded sustainability drives financial performance through mediating factors such as innovation, operational efficiency, risk reduction, employee recruitment, engagement and retention, customer and supplier loyalty, competitive advantage, reduced cost of capital, and improved marketing and sales. These values can be estimated credibly and cost-effectively, and we set about applying them to the Brazilian beef sector.

To do so, we worked with AT Kearney, who led the piloting of our methodology; retailers McDonald's and Carrefour; slaughterhouses JBS (the largest beef producer in Brazil) and Mafrig; Brazilian cattle ranchers, Antea Group, and partner NGOs The Nature Conservancy, Instituto Centro de Vida (ICV) and Imaflora. The Betty and Gordon Moore Foundation provided partial funding for the research.

Shortly after we completed this study, a major scandal erupted in the Brazilian beef sector, with JBS and others implicated in bribing government officials to pass expired beef. Separately, JBS was found to have been sourcing beef from non-deforestation-free areas. The repercussions are significant - JBS stock price plunged by 11% in one trading session, for instance, while total beef exports were down by 14%. While this scandal did not affect the specific supply chains we studied (neither Marfrig nor this particular JBS' supply chain were implicated), we believe it underscores the case for better monetization of risk associated with unsustainable behavior and the need for companies to recognize that this type of decision making is both immoral and bad for the bottom line.

Since 2010 the Brazilian government, slaughterhouses, retailers, and NGOs have made a concerted effort to reduce deforestation, with public authorities responsible for satellite monitoring of the rain forest. The government agricultural agency teamed up with NGOs to work with ranchers on sustainable agriculture practices, which focused on no deforestation, more cattle per hectare, reforestation, managing water, biodiversity, soil conservation, reducing waste, and helping to improve the welfare of workers and animals.

Measuring Sustainability's Impact Across the Value Chain

Our team worked with the value chain actors listed above to assess the financial benefits of sustainable and deforestation-free practices through research, data analysis, and interviews conducted over a four-month timeframe.

The main finding from our study is that sustainability practices lead to improved profitability across the value chain. The uptake of sustainable agricultural practices provided the most financial benefit, while the uptake of deforestation-free commitments reduced risk.

Ranchers, who invested the most in adopting new practices, reaped the most benefits as a percentage of total income in our model - between $18 million and $34 million (12% and 23% of revenues) net present value over 10 years. Ranches in the Amazon currently have fewer than one cow per hectare on average; sustainable intensification methods can increase that to three or more by using fencing, rotation, and other methods to increase the number of cows while decreasing the land use impacts. In addition, the cattle raised under this system are larger and higher quality than animals raised using standard practices, and can command a higher price at the slaughterhouse. These and other benefits translate into better cost management, agricultural innovation, and increased land productivity and quality.

Novo Campo, a program launched in 2012 by ICV, helps local ranchers produce sustainable and deforestation-free beef. For our study, we focused in detail on 10 ranches participating in the Novo Campo program and on Fazenda São Marcelo, a large ranch that has been Rainforest Alliance certified since 2012, working with the Brazilian NGO Imaflora.

"There is no price premium for sustainability alone, only for quality," as one Novo Campo rancher told us. "But when we implemented sustainable practices, our quality immediately increased. Now 70% of beef is sold with quality premium, up from 0% in two years," referring to the extra $0.11 per kilo of beef Novo Campo producers are paid for meat that meets quality standards. Sustainable practices allowed producers to increase the share of quality beef from 0% to 70%, resulting in $425,000 in additional revenue.

Cost-wise, the ranchers are: (1) reducing the costs of inputs such as fertilizers through better management; (2) reducing the cost per kg produced through better agricultural techniques such as pasture recuperation, water distribution, fencing and rotation of pasture; and (3) eliminating the need to lease additional land for production through sustainable intensification (more cattle per hectare). For example, the total cost per head produced in Novo Campo was 39% lower than on conventional ranches: $283 per head versus $460.

All of these changes led to big gains for ranchers, who experienced an increase in productivity of 2.3x per kg of beef per hectare. Profitability was up by 6.8x. GHG emissions were reduced up to 20%. Morale also improved, as ranchers saw these improvements in quality and productivity as a source of pride, stability, and competitive advantage.

For slaughterhouses JBS and Marfrig, most financial benefits came from enhanced revenues and margins from marketing higher-quality and deforestation-free beef, and reduced risks (particularly reputational, regulatory, and supply continuity) - between $20 million and $120 million (0.01% and 0.1% of revenues) in expected net present value over 10 years. Beef labeled as premium quality can be priced 20% to 30% above average-quality beef in supermarkets, bringing better margins to slaughterhouses.

According to our calculations, JBS stands to gain between $17.8 and $103.1 million net over 10 years - between 0.02% and 0.09% of its revenue. Marfrig stands to gain between $1.3 million and $16.5 million net over 10 years, between 0.01% and 0.13% of its revenue. Both are positioned to benefit through revenue increases, risk reduction, reduced cost of capital, and talent enhancement (better retention, engagement, and recruitment).

If more productivity is the biggest gain to the ranchers, and higher margins are the biggest benefit to the slaughterhouses, beef retailers like McDonald's and Carrefour find themselves in a very different position. Consumer-facing brands such as these are the most vulnerable to reputational risk. Social media makes supply chains transparent, and consumers will hold the retailers responsible more than ranchers or slaughterhouses. Therefore, retailers are requiring their suppliers to demonstrate compliance with deforestation-free commitments.

"McDonald's standards in beef sourcing are among the highest in the world; even if our mass consumer is not willing to pay premiums for sustainability, we still have to maintain them," says Daniel Boer, McDonald's Director of Protein Supply for Latin America.

Retailers must be willing to pay for sustainability simply because the risk is too great not to - even if there's a cost to their bottom line. "In 2009, after Greenpeace's report on beef and Amazon deforestation, we had to reduce our supply base to as few as six different suppliers, which is not an ideal position to be in, in terms of price and volume negotiations," Paulo Pianez, the Sustainability Director of Carrefour, told us.

Despite these strictures, we estimated that the Brazilian operations of McDonald's and Carrefour would reap similar types of benefits as the slaughterhouses - approximately $12.5 to $62.1 million (0.01% to 0.6% of revenues) in expected net present value over 10 years, due to reduced risk and higher quality. According to our calculations, the McDonald's system in Brazil would stand to gain between $5.7 million and $22.2 million net over 10 years. Carrefour Brazil stands to gain between $6.8 million and $39.9 million net over 10 years, between 0.01% and 0.05% of its revenue. These estimates are based on publicly available information and assumptions documented in more detail in the full report, and not any actual data, targets or projections of the companies.
Sustainability's Link to Financial Performance
This case study found that, in the case of beef production in the Amazon, embedded sustainability does improve financial performance through mediating factors such as innovation, operational efficiency, risk reduction, employee recruitment, engagement and retention, customer and supplier loyalty, competitive advantage, reduced cost of capital, and improved marketing and sales.

Our results reflect assumptions we made based on previous research and analysis; the data has not been fully validated by the supply chain actors themselves. Data for the ranchers was much easier to obtain than data for the slaughterhouses and retailers. Therefore, we used publicly available information and wider use of assumptions for the latter. However, we believe the analysis provides useful insights into the value created by sustainable and deforestation-free ranching and, just as important, a methodology that all supply chain actors can use.

The methodology was created following five steps, building from the intellectual capital and research of the NYU Stern Center for Sustainable Business with AT Kearney and the input of the Monetization Working Group.

First, based on our framework (Sustainable Business Benefits at the Firm Level), we identified and selected for deeper consideration a list of potential benefits of adopting sustainable and deforestation-free practices across the different players in the supply chain.

Second, we designed a method to quantify those benefits and ascribe a monetary value to them. While this is an oversimplification, it basically boils down to: analyzing the drivers of improved performance through adoption of sustainable practices; identifying significant benefits for each supply chain actor based on each of the overarching drivers; quantifying the results; and assigning a dollar value.

Third, we conducted a round of interviews with industry stakeholders and made site visits to key project partners. During this phase, initial hypotheses regarding the benefits and quantification methods were tested and data was collected.

Fourth, we conducted further desktop research (consulting academic papers, business publications and industry reports, and primary sources -
public/commerce statistics, for example) where data was not previously available or where estimates were needed to build assumptions. At this point, the initial benefits were adjusted. Benefits that proved to be unquantifiable or irrelevant were discarded. The quantification method for the benefits was adjusted based on data availability.

Fifth, we inputed the data and assumptions, assigned a final monetary value to the benefits, and compiled the results for the case study.

In particular, we found that deforestation-free commitments reduce risk, and sustainable agriculture practices create financial opportunity for all value chain actors. It also appears that investments in deforestation-free traceability and other legal requirements can be paid for with the financial gains from adopting sustainable agriculture practices.

We believe that this methodology can be adapted for any industry or value chain by: (1) analyzing the drivers of improved performance (using the mediating factors in our model); (2) identifying key benefits; and (3) quantifying the benefits in financial terms.

The methodology and its application in this case study demonstrate that these financial improvements can be quantified and monetized in a credible and cost-effective manner, and have the potential to serve as a powerful tool with business decision makers.
Authors' note: For more information on quantifying the financial impact of your sustainability efforts, you can download the Excel spreadsheets we used to calculate the numbers for this article.
Editor's note: This piece has been updated to clarify that estimates for McDonald's and Carrefour are based on publicly available data.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to Quantify Sustainability's Impact on Your Bottom Line

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Humanity has an urgent need to fight climate change, and businesses can play a key role in doing so. But we recognize that, in many businesses, resources are often allocated according to short-term, bottom-line pressures. We thus wanted to figure out a way to help executives quantify the financial benefits of reducing their firm's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

# data[].attributes.body
How businesses can promote recycling with their customers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Recycling and conserving energy have become standard practices in a significant percentage of companies in most major industries. Not only is it the right thing to do, but it can also create positive PR that can go a long way in forming positive public opinion. What's better than doing something to improve the world we live in, while improving the public's opinion of your company at the same time?

The problem is that promoting your company's sustainability initiatives can be tricky business. There is a fine line to walk when considering how to promote these types of efforts, and it's easy to fall off and land on the wrong side, ending up appearing to be bragging. Your sustainability programs need to go far beyond reputation management. Creating usable content that provides benefits to consumers, rather than saying "Hey look what we can do" can go a long way in avoiding the world of shameless self-promotion.

So let's get started on the path to marketing sustainability initiatives the right way. It is one thing to save energy at home and cut your next energy bill, but it is another thing to transform the consciousness of a complete stranger when you are running a hotel, a restaurant, or even a website. While marketers work to seek efficiencies creating new content, sustainability campaigns are using popular content marketing trends to market energy efficiency.
Personalization
First of all, businesses must make sustainability more than a campaign. It must become a personal mission, one of which the consumer can be a part. The more important and authentic your mission is to you, the more important it is for the consumer. Don't just talk about what you are doing, talk about how these issues are affecting people all over the world. Cite specific locations and examples, and even tell the stories of people that are affected by pollution and other issues stemming from businesses not having a sustainable operation. You can talk about how your company is different and is helping to fix the problem, but don't just focus on that. Focus on the people.
Information
When it comes to reducing and reusing, consumers want to know why and what impact their actions will make. Greenwashing is all too common, where people are manipulated, through marketing, into thinking a product or service is more natural or sustainable than it really is. Consumers like information in the form of quality content. Mixing personalization and information will give the consumer purpose and pride for the actions you call on them to take. Providing quality content will paint a clearer picture for the impact of sustainability actions.
Interaction
For those later-minded people who appreciate the concept of mission but do not have time to follow through, getting people involved and informed with social media and other multi-media platforms can facilitate future interest and action. It can also allow them to get involved by spreading the word and sharing your posts without having to add more to their already busy schedule.

Social media is another way to not only educate the consumer, but to build general interest and interactions with your brand or organization. Promote your message on a variety of social media channels and encourage others to spread the word by interacting with your posts.

These current trends in sustainability marketing are quite remarkable. Because sustainability campaigns are facilitated by quality content, sustainability campaigns inherently become more transparent. The demand for information allows consumers to be better informed and for marketing campaigns to be more transparent.

Taylor Crouch - Marketing Assistant

(Visited 786 times, 2 visits today)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How do Companies Market Sustainability Initiatives? - EnVeritas Group

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Recycling and conserving energy have become standard practices in a significant percentage of companies in most major industries. Not only is it the right thing to do, but it can also create positive PR that can go a long way in forming positive public opinion.

# data[].attributes.body
Marriott's press release on merger. Interesting facts about how new program will work.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Marriott International, Inc. (NASDAQ: MAR) has completed its acquisition of Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., creating the world's largest and best hotel company. Marriott now offers the most comprehensive portfolio of brands including leading lifestyle brands, a significant global footprint, and leadership in the luxury and select-service tiers as well as the convention and resort segment. Beginning today, Marriott will match member status across Marriott Rewards - which includes The Ritz-Carlton Rewards - and Starwood Preferred Guest (SPG), enabling members to transfer points between the programs for travel and exclusive experiences when they link their accounts later today.

[For Consumer Information: Marriott International's Expanded Portfolio of 30 Leading Hotel Brands Sets New Global Standard for Unrivaled Travel Experiences and Expanded Loyalty Benefits]

Bruce Duncan, Eric Hippeau and Aylwin Lewis Appointed to Marriott Board

"Throughout our nearly 90-year history we have never stopped searching for innovative ways to serve our guests. With the addition of Starwood's strong brands, great properties, and talented people, we have dramatically expanded our ability to provide the best experiences to our customers. We also welcome the tremendous responsibility as the world's largest hotel company to be a good global steward, providing new opportunities for our associates and building the economic strength of the communities we call home," said J.W. Marriott, Jr., Executive Chairman and Chairman of the Board of Marriott International.

"We believe that Marriott now has the world's best portfolio of hotel brands, the most comprehensive global footprint, and the most extensive loyalty programs, providing an unparalleled guest experience. Combining Starwood's brands with ours better enables Marriott to reach our goal of having the right brand in the right place to serve our loyal guests and welcome new ones," said Arne Sorenson, President and Chief Executive Officer of Marriott International. "We can now provide a better range of choices for our guests, more opportunities for our associates, and greater financial benefits for our owners, franchisees, and shareholders."

The new company will operate or franchise more than 5,700 properties and 1.1 million rooms, representing 30 leading brands from the moderate-tier to luxury in over 110 countries. With the completion of this acquisition, Marriott's distribution has more than doubled in Asia and the Middle East & Africa combined.
Best-in-Class Loyalty Programs
Marriott Rewards - which includes the Ritz-Carlton Rewards - and SPG are the most recognized and awarded loyalty programs in hospitality. Together, these programs will offer members more benefits when they link their accounts, as well as new destinations such as Aruba, Tuscany's Serchio Valley and Kruger National Park in South Africa for SPG members and the Maldives, Bora Bora and Santorini, Greece for Marriott Rewards and The Ritz-Carlton Rewards members.

"Marriott will draw upon the very best each program offers and we can't wait to show the loyal members of these programs the power and benefits of Marriott and Starwood coming together," said Stephanie Linnartz, Executive Vice President and Global Chief Commercial Officer.

Marriott will launch a microsite later today, www.members.marriott.com, for all members of the combined company's loyalty programs to learn more about the reciprocal benefits now available and to link accounts.
Transaction Benefits
Marriott's acquisition of Starwood enables the combined company to expand the scope of its distribution and portfolio while deploying its larger scale to realize cost efficiencies in its corporate and property operations. As previously stated, Marriott is confident the company can achieve $250 million in annual corporate cost synergies. Additional synergies at the property level should come in the form of leveraging scale in operations and sharing best practices. Combined sales expertise and improved account coverage are expected to provide both enhanced efficiencies and increased revenue opportunities for managed and franchised properties.

"These enhanced efficiencies and revenue opportunities should drive improved property-level profitability as well as greater owner and franchisee preference for the combined company's brands, which will encourage new hotel development," Sorenson said. "As new travel destinations emerge, Marriott can be counted on to be there."

One-time transaction costs for the merger are expected to total approximately $140 million. Marriott intends to take the steps necessary to cause Starwood's outstanding public debt to be pari passu with the outstanding public debt of Marriott International. Marriott remains committed to maintaining an investment grade credit rating and to continue managing the balance sheet prudently after the merger.
New Board Members and Shares Listing
Effective today, Marriott's Board of Directors has increased from 11 to 14 members, with the addition of Bruce Duncan, Chairman, President and CEO of First Industrial Realty Trust, Inc., Eric Hippeau, Partner, Lerer Hippeau Ventures; and Aylwin Lewis, Chairman and CEO of Potbelly Corporation. Messrs. Hippeau and Lewis are also former Starwood board members. Full biographies on each of the three new Board members are available at www.Marriott.com/investor.

Before market open today, Starwood's shares will cease trading on the New York Stock Exchange. As previously announced, Starwood shareholders will receive $21.00 in cash and 0.80 shares of Marriott International, Inc. Class A common stock for each share of Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc. common stock.

Arne Sorenson remains President and Chief Executive Officer of Marriott International, and Marriott's headquarters continues to be located in Bethesda, Maryland.
Advisors:
Lazard and Citigroup were financial advisors to Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide and Deutsche Bank Securities and Goldman Sachs were the financial advisors to Marriott International. Cravath, Swaine & Moore served as legal counsel to Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher served as legal counsel to Marriott International on the transaction.
Editor's Note:
Marriott International will hold a call with news media at 9:00 A.M. EDT on Friday, September 23 to discuss the closing of the company's merger. Arne Sorenson, President and CEO, will host the call and will be joined by members of his executive team. To access the conference, please call toll-free (800) 401-2065 for U.S. dial-in or (706) 679-3455 for international callers or log into www.marriott.com/investor. Follow us on Marriott's Twitter handle @MarriottIntl.

Media assets, including images, logos, b-roll, video and explanatory graphics are available on our Acquisition page.

Marriott International, Inc. (NASDAQ: MAR) is the world's largest hotel company based in Bethesda, Maryland, USA, with more than 5,700 properties in over 110 countries. Marriott operates and franchises hotels. and licenses vacation ownership resorts. The company's 30 leading brands include: Bulgari Hotels and Resorts®, The Ritz-Carlton® and The Ritz-Carlton Reserve®, St. Regis®, W®, EDITION®, JW Marriott®, The Luxury Collection®, Marriott Hotels®, Westin®, Le Méridien®, Renaissance® Hotels, Sheraton®, Delta Hotels by MarriottSM, Marriott Executive Apartments®, Marriott Vacation Club®, Autograph Collection® Hotels, Tribute Portfolio™, Design Hotels™, Gaylord Hotels®, Courtyard®, Four Points® by Sheraton, SpringHill Suites®, Fairfield Inn & Suites®, Residence Inn®, TownePlace Suites®, AC Hotels by Marriott®, Aloft®, Element®, Moxy Hotels®, and Protea Hotels by Marriott®. The company also operates award-winning loyalty programs: Marriott Rewards®, which includes The Ritz-Carlton Rewards®, and Starwood Preferred Guest®. For more information, please visit our website at www.marriott.com, and for the latest company news, visit www.marriottnewscenter.com and @MarriottIntl.

Note on forward-looking statements: This communication contains "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of U.S. federal securities laws, including statements about the benefits of the transaction, including expected synergies and enhanced revenue opportunities for the combined company, that are not historical facts. We caution you that these statements are not guarantees of future performance and are subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, including the "Risks Related to the Starwood Combination" and other risk factors that we identify in our most recent quarterly report on Form 10-Q that we filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Any of these factors could cause actual results to differ materially from the expectations we express or imply in this communication. We make these forward-looking statements as of the date of this communication, and undertake no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

Contacts:
Tricia Primrose (301) 380-7770, tricia.primrose@marriott.com
Felicia McLemore (301) 380-7770, felicia.mclemore@marriott.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Marriott International Completes Acquisition of Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Creating World's Largest and Best Hotel Company While Providing Unparalleled Guest Experience - Marriott News Center

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Marriott International, Inc. (NASDAQ: MAR) has completed its acquisition of Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., creating the world's largest and best hotel company. Marriott now offers the most comprehensive portfolio of brands including leading lifestyle brands, a significant global footprint, and leadership in the luxury and select-service tiers as well as the convention and ...

# data[].attributes.body
In n Out will never go public because the man who started the business wouldn't have wanted to serve frozen burgers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In-N-Out will "never" go public or franchise its restaurants, the burger chain's president, Lynsi Snyder, told CBS in a rare interview.

"The only reason we would do that is for the money, and I wouldn't do it," Snyder said in the interview.

"My heart is totally connected to this company because of my family, and the fact that they are not here - I have a strong tie to keep this the way they would want it."

That means In-N-Out probably won't be expanding to the East Coast any time soon.

The 304-store chain has slowly expanded eastward over its 65-year lifetime from California to Nevada, Arizona, Utah, and more recently Texas and Oregon. The company has also been holding "pop-up shops" around the world, where burgers tend to sell out within minutes.

All signs would point to a plan for expansion, but without franchising or going public, it's unlikely we'll see an In-N-Out on the East Coast any time soon.

Here's why:

Advertisement

1. Quality control: There are no freezers or microwaves in In-N-Out restaurants because the company has a strict policy of serving its food fresh. Therefore, all locations must be within 300 miles of the company's distribution facilities.

"At In-N-Out Burger, we make all of our hamburger patties ourselves and deliver them fresh to all of our restaurants with our own delivery vehicles," In-N-Out vice president of planning and development Carl Van Fleet told Business Insider in a previous interview. "Nothing is ever frozen. Our new restaurant locations are limited by the distance we can travel from our patty-making facilities and distribution centers."

2. Exclusivity: Everything has more appeal when it's not available to everyone, and the exclusivity of In-N-Out is what has helped the restaurant gain such a rabid following of fans.

In response to pleading from a local politician for an In-N-Out to open in Denver, Van Fleet made it clear the company was not planning to expand farther east.

"You continue to give us the biggest compliment possible with your efforts to interest us in Colorado," he wrote in a letter obtained by The Denver Post. "That said, at this time, we're still not looking to add a sixth state and we're just focusing our growth efforts in the five states where we currently operate."

Advertisement

Since then, In-N-Out has expanded to Oregon - which is the chain's sixth state of operation.

3. Competition: The East Coast has numerous burger joints that would offer tough competition for In-N-Out, including Shake Shack and Five Guys.

4. No franchising: A large-scale expansion without franchising would require a massive amount of up-front capital from the company.

"In-N-Out remains privately owned and the Snyder family has no plans to take the company public or franchise any units," the company reaffirms on its website.

Watch Snyder's interview:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
In-N-Out president explains why the burger chain probably won't expand to the East Coast

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In-N-Out will "never" go public or franchise its restaurants, the burger chain's president, Lynsi Snyder, told CBS in a rare interview. "The only reason we would do that is for the money, and I wouldn't do it," Snyder said in the interview.

# data[].attributes.body
Article about how Marriott's rewards program is one of the best of all the hotel chains.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
CLOSE

Marriott International and Starwood Hotels and Resorts officially merged into one company on Friday, and the new Marriott has already made its first major decision: to give reciprocal benefits to members of each loyalty program.

Almost a year after first announcing the merger agreement, Marriott International has completed its $13 billion purchase of Starwood. With the addition of Starwood's portfolio, the new Marriott now has 30 brands with more than 5,700 hotels. That amounts to 1.1 million rooms in more than 110 countries, making Marriott the largest hotel company in the world.

Members of the Marriott Rewards program and Starwood Preferred Guest (SPG) were immediately able to link their accounts at Members.marriott.com to begin earning and redeeming points at all those hotels.

"We did want to deliver real benefits to our customers immediately," Marriott CEO Arne Sorenson, who is leading the combined company, said during an interview with USA TODAY prior to the close. The two programs will remain separate while Marriott works on technology and product enhancements, Sorenson says.

The highly anticipated merger had a few starts and stops since the deal was reached in November 2015. A Chinese insurance consortium, Anbang, swooped in with a counter-offer that Starwood seriously considered for several weeks earlier this year. Anbang eventually dropped its bid. Then Chinese regulatory authorities, whose approval Marriott needed for the merger in order to operate properties in that coveted market, requested an extension of the review process.

Chinese authorities gave their final approval last week, clearing the way for the merger to be finalized.

Sorenson said the merger will more than double the company's presence in such lucrative regions as Asia, the Middle East and Africa.

The alliance is the biggest hotel merger in years, but it is not the only one. InterContinental Hotels group acquired boutique chain Kimpton Hotels and Restaurants last year. AccorHotels purchased the Fairmont, Raffles, and Swissôtel brands this year. Destination Hotels and Commune Hotels have merged.

Many have likened the consolidation of the hotel industry to that of the airlines.

But Gray Shealy, executive director of the Master's of Hospitality Management Program at Georgetown University, says the Marriott-Starwood merger is likely to be less rocky.

"They've had tons and tons of time to prepare for it," he says. "If anyone is going to do it as smoothly as possible it would be Marriott. Airline operations are so wildly different than hotel operations."

David Loeb, senior hotel research analyst at Baird, says consumers will have a lot more options within the Marriott family, but perhaps not across the entire industry.

"It will be tougher and tougher for smaller companies to compete," he says. "Consumers do like choice."

With the merger, Marriott has acquired such luxury Starwood brands as St. Regis and W Hotels. Those will complement Marriott's The Ritz-Carlton, JW Marriott, and EDITION.

Marriott will also inherit lifestyle brands such as Aloft, which will operate in the same category as Moxy and AC Hotels. The Marriott Hotels brand will co-exist with Sheraton.

Sorenson says he will retain the existing brands, even if they appeal to similar customers.

"We think we're advantaged and our customers are advantaged by having more choice, not less," he said.

That doesn't mean Marriott won't look to improve any brands. Marriott plans to "provide as clear a distinction as we can between the brands in terms of product and service so that our customers can have a sense of what each brand stands for," Sorenson says.

For instance, he said, Starwood's Element, an eco-friendly lifestyle brand, now has just 22 properties worldwide. Sorenson would like to see more growth there.

Another Starwood brand that needs some attention is Sheraton, he said.

"I suspect over the course of the next few years, we will work on strengthening the position of that brand and hopefully driving better returns for owners for all those hotels," he said.

As for the loyalty program, Marriott has already made some decisions. The combined programs have 85 million members.

Members of both Marriott Rewards, which include The Ritz-Carlton frequent guests, and SPG will have their status matched. If they link their accounts, they will be able to transfer and redeem points at a three-to-one ratio. Three Marriott Rewards points will equal one SPG Starpoint. That will apply to redemption stays and the Marriott Rewards Experiences Marketplace and SPG's Moments platform. Those programs allow members to redeem points for exclusive experiences, such as sporting events.

Loyalty program experts praised the initial execution.

"Marriott nailed it with their 3:1 transfer ratio," says Gary Leff, a travel industry expert who studies rewards programs.

He says Starwood is also known for its better treatment of top guests, offering perks such as suite upgrades and fewer limits on complimentary breakfast.

"Until we know how Starwood's best elite benefits and lifetime status will work, and whether the unique partnerships Starwood has forged with airlines like Delta, Emirates, and China Eastern survive the merger, members will continue to be in wait and see mode," he says.

Loeb says he expects Marriott to "go out of its way to be very good to Starwood's elite guests."

"They will do all they can to engender loyalty across the family of brands," he says. "I think that's a very important strategic goal to them."

Brian Kelly, founder of ThePointsGuy.com, says that as an elite member of both programs, he's pleased so far with how Marriott is handling the merger of the programs.

"My biggest fear was that they were going to take benefits away or do a one-size-fits-all approach of Marriott is it," he says. "They haven't, at least not yet ....This merger is so big they don't have to follow in the lead of airline mergers. And in the hotel space, there's never been a hotel merger of this magnitude with these loyalty programs."

Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/2d1CwWm

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Marriott, Starwood merger is complete, loyalty programs will reciprocate

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
CLOSE Marriott International and Starwood Hotels and Resorts officially merged into one company on Friday, and the new Marriott has already made its first major decision: to give reciprocal benefits to members of each loyalty program. Almost a year after first announcing the merger agreement, Marriott International has completed its $13 billion purchase of Starwood.

# data[].attributes.body
Good article about the start up of Marriott.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I recently had the pleasure of speaking to J. W. Marriott Jr., who is the Chairman of Marriott International, Inc., one of the world's largest lodging companies. His leadership spans more than 50 years, and he has taken Marriott from a family restaurant business to a global lodging company with more than 3,700 properties in over 73 countries and territories. Known throughout the industry for his hands-on management style, Mr. Marriott has built a highly regarded culture that emphasizes the importance of Marriott's people and recognizes the value they bring to the organization. Today, approximately 300,000 people wearing Marriott International name badges are serving guests in Marriott managed and franchised properties throughout the world.

His new book is called Without Reservations: How a Family Root Beer Stand Grew Into a Global Hotel Company. In this interview, he talks about how he grew his family business, the obstacles he encountered, the five rules that led to his success, his best career advice and more.
Why did you decide to write this book right now? What do you think makes your story relevant in today's world?
After working for Marriott for over 50 years, I decided to step down from the CEO position and hand the reigns over to Arne Sorenson. With such a significant change in our leadership taking place, now seemed like the appropriate time to write. I am so very proud of the company that my parents started as a root beer stand in 1927, which grew over the past 85 years into a global success comprised of over 3,700 hotels in 74 countries.

Companies are under an ever-sharp magnifying glass. The values that have served as Marriott's guiding principles over the past eight decades transcend the hotel business. I think they are valuable for other companies to consider.
As you grew your business, what obstacles did you encounter, how did you overcome them and what were the major milestones?
One of the largest obstacles was when we had to deal with the aftermath of September 11, 2001 and the unknown effects it would have on the travel industry. Not to mention the changes it would impose on our global expansion and the recovery of all the Marriott associates and guests impacted that day.

More recently, the global economic downturn that began in 2008 and the previous similar experience of the early 1990s were also significant obstacles to overcome. We drew upon the previous 1990s layoffs to handle the human side of the equation again in 2008. Some were inevitable, but we were able to temper the pain by keeping many people on board at reduced hours but with full health benefits.

Some of the largest milestones were when we expanded globally. Our first hotel built outside the United States was in Mexico in 1969. The first Marriott located in Europe was built in Amsterdam. The first in the Middle East was the Riyadh Marriott Hotel in Saudi Arabia in 1980. In Africa, our first hotel was the Cairo Marriott in 1981. In Asia, it was Hong Kong in 1989.
In your book, you mention five rules that led to Marriott's success. What are they and how did you originally come up with them?
First and foremost, we put people first. Then we pursue excellence, act with integrity, embrace change, and serve our world.

The first item of the five has been our company credo since my parents' era. "Take care of your employees, and they'll take care of your customers" was the daily mantra that my brother, Dick, and I heard from our father while we were growing up.

The other four values stretch back in time to the earliest days of the company, 30 years before we ever thought about building our first hotel, to our popular Hot Shoppes restaurants. Customers could count on spotless dishes and shiny floors ("Pursue excellence"), an ever-growing menu ("Embrace change"), honest value for their money ("Act with integrity") and a true sense of community second to none ("Serve our world").

Marriott has come a long, long way from the days of being known as a regional family restaurant chain, but our values haven't budged an inch. In fact, they've deepened over time into a commitment to do what great companies should do: make a lasting, positive difference in the world.
What do you think led to the success of Marriott when other chains have failed?
Well my father used to say take good care of the employees, and they will in turn take good care of the customers who will return again and again. That's putting people first! And of course it leads to profit and market share gains and ultimately a successful business.

I believe you succeed in business by being true to purpose beyond profits. From the very beginning of Marriott we believed in opening the doors to a world of opportunities for our associates.
What are your top three pieces of career advice?
1. I believe that you have to challenge yourself personally - constantly strive to improve and we believe at Marriott that success is never final.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
J. W. Marriott Jr: From Root Beer Stand to Global Hotel Company

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
J. W. Marriott Jr. I recently had the pleasure of speaking to J. W. Marriott Jr., who is the Chairman of Marriott International, Inc., one of the world's largest lodging companies. His leadership spans more than 50 years, and he has taken Marriott from a family restaurant business to a global lodging company [...]

# data[].attributes.body
Marriott expanding to become the world's largest hotel chain.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
- The new Marriott Port-au-Prince Hotel today checked in its first guests. Among the 200 new Haitian hotel workers who welcomed them were young people from disadvantaged backgrounds, and Haitian-Americans who want to share their hospitality skills to help boost Haiti's tourism economy. The stories of these new associates include Luccardo, who was recruited to work at the hotel's front desk from the Nos Petits Frères et Soeurs orphanage, and Hermine, who was part of the hotel's intern program and will be an entry-level supervisor. In addition to members of a Haitian-American executive team, the Haiti Marriott is led by a veteran Marriott general manager who was previously at the Marriott Champs Elysees in Paris. [ Download images.]

st. A formal grand opening event is planned for June.

"The opening of the Marriott Port-au-Prince is an important milestone as the people of Haiti work to revitalize and diversify their economy," said President Bill Clinton. "I am grateful to Marriott and Digicel for their commitment to this project, and hope that its success will inspire further investment and opportunity in Haiti."

Digicel Group and its Chairman, Mr. O'Brien, are committed to attracting foreign direct investment to Haiti and to helping the country rebuild in the wake of the earthquake. Mr. O'Brien is Founder and Patron of the Digicel Foundation, which to date has constructed 150 schools in Haiti, and rebuilt the iconic Iron Market in Port-au-Prince. He is also the Chairman of the Clinton Global Initiative's Haiti Action Network and has been instrumental in driving the activity of 80 support organizations in Haiti to deliver on their commitments.

"All along, we've said that we were committed to Haiti's recovery and to delivering on its potential as a great place to invest, and as such, we are thrilled to be opening the doors of the Marriott Port-au-Prince here today," said Mr. O'Brien. "We hope that the opening of the hotel will signal that Haiti is truly open for business and is ready to welcome investors and travelers alike."

TDSA, the development company established by Digicel, managed the design/build contract and chose Marriott International's flagship Marriott Hotels brand as its operating partner under a long-term management agreement. The hotel created more than 1,100 jobs throughout the construction stage.

Marriott's interest in investing in Haiti was inspired in part by its associates, including thousands of Haitian-Americans who, after the earthquake, urged the company to help Haiti rebuild by planting the Marriott flag. Said Arne Sorenson, Marriott International President and CEO, "We believe we can make a difference in Haiti by promoting tourism, and developing local talent that can help lift this country, over time, back to being one of the top travel destinations in the Caribbean."

Through this project, Marriott is demonstrating how a hotel can be a model for social innovation and community investment. Working with Haiti's Ministry of Tourism, Marriott selected 8 Haitian youth to train in hospitality operations at the new JW Marriott® Hotel Santo Domingo. The youth recently returned to Haiti after their 12-week internship in Santo Domingo and have been hired as entry-level supervisors at the Marriott Port-au-Prince Hotel.

Marriott is also collaborating with Haiti's Ministry of Tourism and World Central Kitchen to build the skills and training of Haiti's hospitality workforce through newly designed hospitality curriculum for local culinary students. Marriott has provided funding to help support the innovative new program, which is currently being delivered to its first culinary class of nearly 40 students in a school located near the Marriott Hotel Port-au-Prince. The program will be expanded when a new Ecole Hotelier, currently under construction, is completed in 2015

In addition to the 200 new hotel jobs and hospitality training, the hotel is sourcing goods, food and amenities from local small businesses, social enterprises, farms and Haitian artisans. The unique craftsmanship of more than a dozen Haitian-based artisans, including the hotel's art curator, Philippe Dodard, is showcased throughout the hotel's guest rooms, corridors, great room, conference areas, restaurant and courtyard. From signature metalworks, paper mache masks and voodoo flags, to contemporary photography and stone and wood sculptures using natural and recycled materials, the deep, vibrant art culture of Haiti is on display. The hotel will also feature weekly art markets where guests can purchase art from local artists on the hotel grounds.

TOMS is a key supplier to the Marriott Port-au-Prince, with the company providing custom-designed shoes made in Haiti for each of the hotel's staff. Additionally, TOMS is producing shoes in Haiti as part of its commitment to help establish and support a responsible shoe industry in the country. As a locally staffed and operated facility, TOMS and its manufacturing partner, LXJ Golden Pacific, economically empower individuals while giving international businesses an opportunity to invest in Haiti's future.

Marriott Port-au-Prince is sourcing 100 percent of its coffee from Haitian company, Rebo Coffee, which employs several hundred women who carefully select the beans for quality. Rebo is a socially responsible business that is investing in agricultural and financial training for small and independent farmers.

Marriott Port-au-Prince is pleased to be the first hotel in Haiti to source produce from Afe Neg Combite, a Kenscoff-based co-op made up of 5,500 farmers employing a total of 8,000 people. Marriott's procurement team has been working with the farmers for more than a year to help them produce, package and transport fruits and vegetables in ways that meet the quality, yield and lower waste standards of the hospitality industry.

The hotel is sourcing sustainable, fair-trade soaps and amenities from local producer Ayiti Natives. The products are made by Haitians using local Haitian herbs, nuts and fruits. Ayiti Natives was founded by Caroline Sada, a Haitian American social entrepreneur who left a job with a well-known U.S. cosmetics company after the Haiti earthquake struck - she wanted to give back to the local community. All of her employees are women, and most come from the most destitute villages in Haiti.

The Marriott Hotel Port-au-Prince was sustainably designed and constructed, providing stand-alone utility services while applying energy efficient building technologies. Its features include:

A densely insulated building envelope, with low solar gain glazing complemented with additional direct sun screens;

A high-efficient energy plant producing 6 megawatts of electricity from 6 x 1100kw diesel generators. The plant is connected to a 1 megawatt solar farm located near the site;

On-site water storage and treatment systems to provide for a five-day water supply; 60 percent of the hotel's hot water supply is provided through thermal solar panels installed on the roof;

A 60,000 gallon waste water treatment plant; and

A state-of-the -art space cooling plant with all building services controlled by a central building management system.

"Merci, merci," said Haiti Minister of Tourism Stéphanie Villedrouin. "Marriott International and Digicel Group's dedication to completing this project is to be commended. The opening of this hotel is a huge vote of confidence in the future economic viability of Haiti. The Marriott Port-au-Prince, which will be located in the Haut Turgeau area of the city, will offer 170 rooms including 5 suites with Marriott's signature amenities and features, including premium bedding, high-speed Internet (LAN and wireless) and flat-screen televisions. Dining options will include La Sirene Restaurant, a casual restaurant and La Sirene Bar, a lobby bar and lounge and 24-hour room service. The hotel will include about 604 square meters (6,501 square feet) of flexible meeting space, a 150-square-meter (1,614-square-foot) fitness center, swimming pool, and sundries shop/marketplace. About Digicel Group: Digicel Group is a total communications and entertainment provider with operations in 33 markets in the Caribbean, Central America and Asia Pacific. After almost 14 years of operation, total investment to date stands at over US$5 billion worldwide. The company is renowned for delivering best value, best service and best network.

Digicel is the lead sponsor of Caribbean, Central American and Pacific sports teams, including the Special Olympics teams throughout these regions. Digicel sponsors the West Indies cricket team and is also the presenting partner of the Caribbean Premier League. In the Pacific, Digicel is the proud sponsor of several national rugby teams and also sponsors the Vanuatu cricket team. Digicel also runs a host of community-based initiatives across its markets and has set up Digicel Foundations in Haiti, Jamaica, Papua New Guinea and Trinidad and Tobago which focus on educational, cultural and social development programs. Visit www.digicelgroup.com for more information.

About Marriott International:
Marriott International, Inc. (NASDAQ: MAR) is a leading lodging company based in Bethesda, Maryland, USA, with more than 4,100 properties in 79 countries and territories and reported revenues of nearly $14 billion in fiscal year 2014. The company operates and franchises hotels and licenses vacation ownership resorts under 18 brands. For more information or reservations, please visit our web site at www.marriott.com, and for the latest company news, visit http://news.marriott.com/.

About Marriott Hotels:
With more than 500 hotels and resorts in nearly 50 countries around the world, Marriott Hotels is evolving travel through every aspect of the guest's stay, enabling the next generation to Travel Brilliantly. Boldly transforming itself for mobile and global travelers who blend work and play, Marriott leads the industry with innovations, including the Greatroom, Future of Meetings and Mobile Guest Services that elevates style & design and technology. All Marriott hotels participate in the award winning Marriott Rewards frequent travel program that allows members to earn hotel points or airline miles for every dollar spent during each stay. For more information, visit www.MarriottHotels.com.

The Clinton Foundation:
Building on a lifetime of public service, President Bill Clinton established the William J. Clinton Foundation with the mission to improve global health, strengthen economies, promote healthier childhoods, and protect the environment by fostering partnerships among governments, businesses, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and private citizens to turn good intentions into measurable results. Since 2001 President Clinton's vision and leadership have resulted in nearly 4 million people benefiting from lifesaving HIV/AIDS treatment; more than 12,000 U.S. schools building healthier learning environments; more than 26,000 micro-entrepreneurs, small business owners, and smallholder farmers improving their livelihoods and communities; and more than 2.2 million tons of greenhouse gases cut or abated in some of the world's largest cities. And President Clinton has redefined the way we think about giving and philanthropy through his Clinton Global Initiative, whose members have made more than 2,100 commitments that have already improved the lives of 400 million people in more than 180 countries.

Contact:
Felicia McLemore
(301) 380-2772
felicia.mclemore@marriott.com

Marriott International, Inc. (NASDAQ: MAR) is the world's largest hotel company based in Bethesda, Maryland, USA, with more than 6,000 properties in 122 countries and territories. Marriott operates and franchises hotels and licenses vacation ownership resorts. The company's 30 leading brands include: Bulgari®, The Ritz-Carlton® and The Ritz-Carlton Reserve®, St. Regis®, W®, EDITION®, JW Marriott®, The Luxury Collection®, Marriott Hotels®, Westin®, Le Méridien®, Renaissance® Hotels, Sheraton®, Delta Hotels by MarriottSM, Marriott Executive Apartments®, Marriott Vacation Club®, Autograph Collection® Hotels, Tribute Portfolio™, Design Hotels™, Gaylord Hotels®, Courtyard®, Four Points® by Sheraton, SpringHill Suites®, Fairfield Inn & Suites®, Residence Inn®, TownePlace Suites®, AC Hotels by Marriott®, Aloft®, Element®, Moxy® Hotels, and Protea Hotels by Marriott®. The company also operates award-winning loyalty programs: Marriott Rewards®, which includes The Ritz-Carlton Rewards®, and Starwood Preferred Guest®. For more information, please visit our website at www.marriott.com, and for the latest company news, visit www.marriottnewscenter.com and @MarriottIntl.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Digicel and Marriott Open Haiti Hotel - Marriott News Center

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The new Marriott Port-au-Prince Hotel today checked in its first guests. Among the 200 new Haitian hotel workers who welcomed them were young people from disadvantaged backgrounds, and Haitian-Americans who want to share their hospitality skills to help boost Haiti's tourism economy. The stories of these new associates include Luccardo, who was recruited to work ...

# data[].attributes.body
Merger advantage for Marriott shareholders.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Marriott International, Inc. (NASDAQ: MAR) and Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc. (NYSE: HOT) announced today that the boards of directors of both companies have unanimously approved a definitive merger agreement under which the companies will create the world's largest hotel company. The transaction combines Starwood's leading lifestyle brands and international footprint with Marriott's strong presence in the luxury and select-service tiers, as well as the convention and resort segment, creating a more comprehensive portfolio. The merged company will offer broader choice for guests, greater opportunities for associates and should unlock additional value for Marriott and Starwood shareholders. Combined, the companies operate or franchise more than 5,500 hotels with 1.1 million rooms worldwide. The combined company's pro forma fee revenue for the 12 months ended September 30, 2015 totals over $2.7 billion.

Download video b-roll, logos, images and infographic.

" Transaction Offers Substantial Economies of Scale"

Transaction Highlights and Strategic Benefits

Summary of Transaction: Under the terms of the agreement, at closing, Starwood shareholders will receive 0.92 shares of Marriott International, Inc. Class A common stock and $2.00 in cash for each share of Starwood common stock. On a pro forma basis, Starwood shareholders would own approximately 37 percent of the combined company's common stock after completion of the merger using fully diluted share counts as of September 30, 2015. Total consideration to be paid by Marriott totals $12.2 billion consisting of $11.9 billion of Marriott International stock, based on the 20-day VWAP (volume weighted average price) of Marriott stock ending on November 13, 2015, and $340 million of cash, based on approximately 170 million fully diluted Starwood shares outstanding at September 30, 2015. Based on Marriott's 20-day VWAP ending November 13, 2015, the merger transaction has a current value of $72.08 per Starwood share, including the $2 cash per share consideration. Starwood shareholders will separately receive consideration from the spin-off of the Starwood timeshare business and subsequent merger with Interval Leisure Group, which has an estimated value of approximately $1.3 billion to Starwood shareholders or approximately $7.80 per Starwood share, based on the 20-day VWAP of Interval Leisure Group stock ending November 13, 2015. The timeshare transaction should close prior to the Marriott-Starwood merger closing.

*Marriott 20-day VWAP ending November 13, 2015, calculated at 0.92 of $76.17

**Based on ILG 20-day VWAP ending November 13, 2015. Excludes $132M of cash consideration and reimbursement from ILG to Starwood

" Combined Company Should Deliver Significant Capital Returns to Shareholders"

After adjusting for the value of consideration to be separately received by Starwood shareholders in the Vistana transaction, the merger consideration represents a premium of approximately 6 percent over the Starwood stock price using the 20-day VWAP ending November 13, 2015 and a premium of approximately 19 percent using the 20-day VWAP ending October 26, 2015 (prior to recent acquisition rumors).

Leveraging Operating Efficiencies: Marriott expects to deliver at least $200 million in annual cost savings in the second full year after closing. This will be accomplished by leveraging operating and G&A efficiencies.

Accretive to Earnings: Marriott expects the transaction to be earnings accretive by the second year after the merger, not including the impact of transaction and transition costs. Earnings will benefit from post-transaction asset sales, increased efficiencies and accelerated unit growth.

Significant Capital Recycling Program: Marriott expects Starwood to continue its capital recycling program, generating an estimated $1.5 to $2.0 billion of after-tax proceeds from the sale of owned hotels over the next two years. The hotels are expected to be sold subject to long-term operating agreements.

Continued Strong Returns to Shareholders: On a pro forma combined basis, Marriott and Starwood generated $2.7 billion in fee revenue in the 12 months ending September 2015. In 2015, Marriott expects to return at least $2.25 billion in dividends and share repurchases to shareholders. Marriott believes it can return at least as much in the first year following the merger.

Accelerated Global Growth: Marriott International expects to accelerate the growth of Starwood's brands, leveraging Marriott's worldwide development organization and owner and franchisee relationships. The combined company will have a broader global footprint, strengthening Marriott's ability to serve guests wherever they travel.

Lifestyle Leader: Starwood's first-mover advantage in the lifestyle category, along with Marriott's broad range of brands in this segment, positions the combined company as a leader in the lifestyle space. With Marriott's strong owner and franchisee relationships, the combined company expects growth of its lifestyle brands to accelerate.

World-Class Associates: This combination brings together two of the most talented teams in the industry. Together, they will combine their innovative ideas and service commitment to deliver unforgettable guest experiences.

Leading Loyalty Programs: Today, Marriott Rewards, with 54 million members, and Starwood Preferred Guest, with 21 million members, are among the industry's most-awarded loyalty programs, driving significant repeat business. They should be even stronger when the companies merge.

Owner and Franchisee Preference: The combined company will be able to realize increased efficiency by leveraging economies of scale in areas such as reservations, procurement and shared services. Combined sales expertise and increased account coverage should drive additional customer loyalty, increasing revenue. We expect that these enhanced efficiencies and revenue opportunities should drive improved property-level profitability as well as greater owner and franchisee preference for the combined company's brands.

Commitment to Management and Franchising: Marriott remains committed to its management and franchise strategy, minimizing capital investment in the business to generate attractive shareholder returns.

Arne Sorenson, President and Chief Executive Officer of Marriott International, said: "The driving force behind this transaction is growth. This is an opportunity to create value by combining the distribution and strengths of Marriott and Starwood, enhancing our competitiveness in a quickly evolving marketplace. This greater scale should offer a wider choice of brands to consumers, improve economics to owners and franchisees, increase unit growth and enhance long-term value to shareholders. Today is the start of an incredible journey for our two companies. We expect to benefit from the best talent from both companies as we position ourselves for the future. I know we'll do great things together as The World's Favorite Travel Company."

J.W. Marriott, Jr., Executive Chairman and Chairman of the Board of Marriott International, said: "We have competed with Starwood for decades and we have also admired them. I'm excited we will add great new hotels to our system and for the incredible opportunities for Starwood and Marriott associates. I'm delighted to welcome Starwood to the Marriott family."

Bruce Duncan, Chairman of the Board of Directors of Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, said: "During our comprehensive review of strategic and financial alternatives, it was clear that our talented people, world-class brands, global leadership and spirit of innovation were much admired and key drivers of our value. Our board concluded that a combination with Marriott provides the greatest long-term value for our shareholders and the strongest and most certain path forward for our company. Starwood shareholders will benefit from ownership in one of the world's most respected companies, with vast growth potential further enhanced by cost synergies. Starwood's shareholders will also receive the value of the previously announced sale of our vacation ownership business to Interval Leisure Group, which is not part of this transaction."

Adam Aron, Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide Chief Executive Officer on an interim basis, said: "We are excited to play a vital role in the creation of the biggest and best hotel company in the world with tremendous upside potential. The combination of our two companies brings together the best in innovation, culture and execution. Our guests and customers will benefit from so many more options across 30 hotel brands, while our hotel owners and franchisees will derive value from our combined global platform and efficiencies. We are also delighted that our associates will have expanded opportunities as part of a larger organization that is consistently recognized as one of the best companies to work for in the world."

One-time transaction costs for the merger are expected to total approximately $100 to $150 million. Transition costs are expected to be incurred over the next two years. They cannot be estimated at this time, but are expected to be meaningful.

Marriott will assume Starwood's recourse debt at the closing of the transaction. Marriott remains committed to maintaining an investment grade credit rating and to continue managing the balance sheet prudently after the merger. Marriott expects to maintain our 3.0x to 3.25x adjusted debt to adjusted EBITDAR target.

Arne Sorenson will remain President and Chief Executive Officer of Marriott International following the merger and Marriott's headquarters will remain in Bethesda, Maryland. Marriott's Board of Directors following the closing will increase from 11 to 14 members with the expected addition of three members of the Starwood Board of Directors.

The transaction is subject to Marriott International and Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide shareholder approvals, completion of Starwood's planned disposition of its timeshare business, regulatory approvals and the satisfaction of other customary closing conditions. Assuming receipt of the necessary approvals, the parties expect the transaction to close in mid-2016.
Conference Call at 9:00 am ET on Monday, November 16, 2015
Marriott International and Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide will jointly conduct a conference call for the investment community on Monday, November 16, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. ET. The call will be webcast simultaneously at Marriott's investor relations website www.marriott.com/investor and at Starwood's investor relations website http://www.starwoodhotels.com/corporate/about/investor/index.html.

The telephone dial-in number for the conference call is (855) 631-5368 and for participants outside the U.S., +1 (330) 863-3283. The conference ID is 82603071. A telephone replay of the conference call will be available for two weeks. To access the replay, call (855) 859-2056 or

+1 (404) 537-3406. The conference ID for the recording is 82603071.
Advisors
Lazard and Citigroup are serving as financial advisors to Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide and Deutsche Bank Securities is the financial advisor to Marriott International. Cravath, Swaine & Moore is serving as legal counsel to Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher is serving as legal counsel to Marriott International on the transaction.
No Offer of Solicitation
The information in this communication is for informational purposes only and is neither an offer to purchase, nor a solicitation of an offer to sell, subscribe for or buy any securities or the solicitation of any vote or approval in any jurisdiction pursuant to or in connection with the proposed transactions or otherwise, nor shall there be any sale, issuance or transfer of securities in any jurisdiction in contravention of applicable law. No offer of securities shall be made except by means of a prospectus meeting the requirements of Section 10 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and otherwise in accordance with applicable law.
Additional Information and Where to Find It
The proposed transaction will be submitted to Marriott's and Starwood's stockholders for their consideration. In connection with the proposed transaction, Marriott will file with the SEC a registration statement on Form S-4 that will include a joint proxy statement of Marriott and Starwood that will also constitute a prospectus of Marriott. Investors and security holders are urged to read the joint proxy statement and registration statements/prospectuses and any other relevant documents filed with the SEC when they become available, because they will contain important information. Investors and security holders may obtain a free copy of the joint proxy statement/prospectus and other documents (when available) that Marriott and Starwood file with the SEC at the SEC's website at www.sec.gov. In addition, these documents may be obtained from Marriott free of charge by directing a request to investorrelations@marriott.com, or from Starwood free of charge by directing a request to ir@starwoodhotels.com.
Participants in Solicitation
Marriott, Starwood, and certain of their respective directors and executive officers may be deemed to be participants in the proposed transaction under the rules of the SEC. Investors and security holders may obtain information regarding the names, affiliations and interests of Marriott's directors and executive officers in Marriott's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014, which was filed with the SEC on February 19, 2015, and its proxy statement for its 2015 Annual Meeting, which was filed with the SEC on April 7, 2015. Information regarding the names, affiliations and interests of Starwood's directors and executive officers may be found in Starwood's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014, which was filed with the SEC on February 25, 2015, and its definitive proxy statement for its 2015 Annual Meeting, which was filed with the SEC on April 17, 2015. These documents can be obtained free of charge from the sources listed above. Additional information regarding the interests of these individuals will also be included in the joint proxy statement/prospectus regarding the proposed transaction when it becomes available.
Note on forward-looking statements About Marriott International, Inc. This press release contains "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of U.S. federal securities laws, including the parties' plans for closing the transaction; the resulting impact on the size of Marriott's operations; statements concerning the benefits of the transaction, including the combined company's future financial and operating results, plans and expectations; and anticipated future events and expectations that are not historical facts. We caution you that these statements are not guarantees of future performance and are subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, including the receipt of necessary consents, and other risk factors that we identify in our most recent quarterly report on Form 10-Q. Any of these factors could cause actual results to differ materially from the expectations we express or imply in this press release. We make these forward-looking statements as of the date of this press release. We undertake no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. About Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.
Marriott International, Inc. (NASDAQ: MAR) is a global leading lodging company based in Bethesda, Maryland, USA, with more than 4,300 properties in 85 countries and territories. Marriott International reported revenues of nearly $14 billion in fiscal year 2014. The company operates and franchises hotels and licenses vacation ownership resorts under 19 brands, including: The Ritz-Carlton®, Bvlgari®, EDITION®, JW Marriott®, Autograph Collection® Hotels, Renaissance® Hotels, Marriott Hotels®, Delta Hotels and Resorts®, Marriott Executive Apartments®, Marriott Vacation Club®, Gaylord Hotels®, AC Hotels by Marriott®, Courtyard®, Residence Inn®, SpringHill Suites®, Fairfield Inn & Suites®, TownePlace Suites®, Protea Hotels® and MoxyHotels®. Marriott has been consistently recognized as a top employer and for its superior business ethics. The company also manages the award-winning guest loyalty program, Marriott Rewards® and The Ritz-Carlton Rewards® program, which together surpass 54 million members. For more information or reservations, please visit our website at www.marriott.com, and for the latest company news, visit www.marriottnewscenter.com.
Contacts: For Media: Marriott International, Inc.
Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc. is one of the leading hotel and leisure companies in the world with more than 1,270 properties in some 100 countries and over 180,000 employees at its owned and managed properties. Starwood is a fully integrated owner, operator and franchisor of hotels, resorts and residences under the renowned brands: St. Regis®, The Luxury Collection®, W®, Design Hotels, Westin®, Le Méridien®, Sheraton®, Four Points® by Sheraton, Aloft®, Element®, and the recently introduced Tribute Portfolio™. The company also boasts one of the industry's leading loyalty programs, Starwood Preferred Guest (SPG ®). Visit www.starwoodhotels.com for more information and stay connected @starwoodbuzz on Twitter and Instagram and facebook.com/Starwood.

Tricia Primrose, (301) 380-7770, tricia.primrose@marriott.com
Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide
Tom Marder, (301) 380-7770, thomas.marder@marriott.com

K.C. Kavanagh, 866-478-2777, kc.kavanagh@starwoodhotels.com
Sard Verbinnen & Co
Carrie Bloom, 203-964-5755 carrie.bloom@starwoodhotels.com

George Sard, 212-687-8080, gsard@sardverb.com
For Investors: Marriott International, Inc.
Stephanie Pillersdorf, 212-687-8080, sp@sardverb.com

Laura Paugh, (301) 380-7418, laura.paugh@marriott.com
Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide
Betsy Dahm, (301) 380-3372, betsy.dahm@marriott.com

Stephen Pettibone, (203) 351-3500, Stephen.pettibone@starwoodhotels.com

Marriott International, Inc. (NASDAQ: MAR) is the world's largest hotel company based in Bethesda, Maryland, USA, with more than 6,000 properties in 122 countries and territories. Marriott operates and franchises hotels and licenses vacation ownership resorts. The company's 30 leading brands include: Bulgari®, The Ritz-Carlton® and The Ritz-Carlton Reserve®, St. Regis®, W®, EDITION®, JW Marriott®, The Luxury Collection®, Marriott Hotels®, Westin®, Le Méridien®, Renaissance® Hotels, Sheraton®, Delta Hotels by MarriottSM, Marriott Executive Apartments®, Marriott Vacation Club®, Autograph Collection® Hotels, Tribute Portfolio™, Design Hotels™, Gaylord Hotels®, Courtyard®, Four Points® by Sheraton, SpringHill Suites®, Fairfield Inn & Suites®, Residence Inn®, TownePlace Suites®, AC Hotels by Marriott®, Aloft®, Element®, Moxy® Hotels, and Protea Hotels by Marriott®. The company also operates award-winning loyalty programs: Marriott Rewards®, which includes The Ritz-Carlton Rewards®, and Starwood Preferred Guest®. For more information, please visit our website at www.marriott.com, and for the latest company news, visit www.marriottnewscenter.com and @MarriottIntl.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Marriott International to Acquire Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Creating the World's Largest Hotel Company - Marriott News Center

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Marriott International, Inc. (NASDAQ: MAR) and Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc. (NYSE: HOT) announced today that the boards of directors of both companies have unanimously approved a definitive merger agreement under which the companies will create the world's largest hotel company. The transaction combines Starwood's leading lifestyle brands and international footprint with Marriott's strong ...

# data[].attributes.body
Great read about the family who started In n Out and who is running it now.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Keep it real simple. Do one thing and do it the best you can." - Harry Snyder

Today, the heart of In-N-Out Burger is still located in the same one-mile radius in Baldwin Park where the iconic restaurant began almost seventy years ago. A Mediterranean-style office complex dominates the appropriately named Hamburger Lane. In-N-Out University, where the company's managers are trained, stands in all its middle-class American glory in a parking lot next to the company store and a shiny In-N-Out Burger, which serves its legendary burgers and shakes to hungry Baldwin Park residents. The 10 Freeway, emblematic of the car culture that helped fast food restaurants flourish, looms overhead. On the other side of the freeway is a charming replica of the first, tiny In-N-Out Burger, started by a young couple in love during the post-war L.A. County boom, when anything and everything seemed possible.

They met cute in September 1947. Esther Johnson, a shy and smart recent college graduate and WWII WAVES veteran, was working as a manager at a restaurant at the Fort Lawton Base in Seattle, Washington. Harry Snyder, a tall, former serviceman who had spent much of his life in the food service industry, came to deliver boxes of sandwiches to Esther's restaurant. They soon married, and in early 1948 they took off for Southern California. According to journalist Stacy Perman, the two were a match made in heaven:

The pair seemed to complement each other perfectly. While Harry was tough and could be demanding, Esther, widely regarded as a gentle soul, did much to soften Harry's rougher edges. He had street sense, she was book smart. Where he was a maverick, a visionary, she was grounded, practical....They were both kindhearted souls who shared a generosity of spirit. Harry believed in his ability to create his own opportunities and Esther believed in Harry.

The Synders settled in Baldwin Park, a young, lively, rural village in the San Gabriel Valley, filled with cattle ranches, family-friendly trailer parks and small GI houses. The dream for In-N-Out was Harry's, who believed that what busy, modern Americans needed was a "place people can get their sandwiches and go." On October 22, 1948, the newlyweds opened their first In-N-Out Burger, featuring a simple menu of burgers, french fries and soft drinks. At the beginning, Esther and Harry were the only employees. He cooked the food, she kept the books. Decades later, Esther recalled in her understated way, that "many, cold, smoggy nights were spent during the first few months of operation, but it was worthwhile."

The stand was an immediate hit. Perman estimates that in their first month the Snyders sold around two thousand hamburgers. From the start, In-N-Out was different from its competitors in the nascent fast food industry. Harry abhorred cheap food. He "wanted to take the lettuce off the ground, the tomato off the vine and the onion and prepare the burger fresh right now," his nephew Bob Meserve recalled. "That was his goal."

"Mr. Snyder stressed quality from the first day he opened for business," Esther remembered, "no matter the price, he believed that the customer deserved the best product they could produce." Unlike most service industry establishments, the Snyders valued the employees they began to hire, and treated them like family. Many of these early employees would stay at In-N-Out for their entire careers. The small stand also featured what many believe to be the first automatic ordering system a two-way speaker box at the front of the gravel drive-thru.

The 1950s was a time of personal and professional expansion for the Snyders. In 1951, they opened their second location in Covina, and also had their first son, Guy. A year later, Esther gave birth to a second son, Rich. The boys, polar opposites almost from the start, would grow up helping at their parents' restaurants, and at the Irwindale Raceway, which Harry would own a stake in for a number of years. The family soon relocated to the upper-middle class enclave of San Dimas, but they were still very active in the Baldwin Park community. In-N-Out expanded slowly, since the Snyders refused to buy anything on credit or to franchise, and only opened in carefully picked locations, in what we now might term "bedroom communities."

In-N-Out Burger's cachet grew throughout the 1950s and '60s. The original Baldwin Park store became a destination for celebrities like Lucille Ball and Bob Hope when travelling from Los Angeles to their second homes in Palm Springs. During the '50s, the hot-rod youth culture made In-N-Out Burger one of their primary hangouts, while the surfers ruled during the 1960s. By the time Harry died of lung cancer in 1976, there were 18 In-N-Out Burgers spread all across the Southland. The company's mystique was increased by their secrecy--the Snyders eschewed publicity and hardly ever gave interviews or released financial information--a practice that continues to this day.

The question of inheritance was a tricky one for the Snyder family. Rich, the younger son, was the clear heir apparent. "Rich was the corporate type and Guy was the wild one," one friend explained. His parents' clear favorite, Rich was a friendly, upright, deeply conservative young man. He had started helping with the company finances at 17, often telling friends that he couldn't go out because he was "doing the books." Guy, on the other hand, was the rebel obsessed with racing and struggling with a drug problem that spiraled out of control after a terrible motorcycle crash in the mid-70s. And so, in an expected move that would set up a complicated family dynamic for the rest of their short lives, 24-year-old Rich became president of In-N-Out. Esther (still the controlling shareholder) became the secretary-treasurer, and Guy was thrown a bone, with the title of executive vice-president.

Until his death in 1993, Rich would continue to honor his parents' ethical values while pushing for greater expansion. "Rich was shrewder as a business person," Meserve recalled. "Harry was old school and Richard was new school. Rich had vision. He knew what he wanted to accomplish." Rich built the new executive complex in Baldwin Park, and eventually moved some of the corporate offices to his adopted hometown of Irvine, in Orange County. A devoted born-again Christian, it was Rich who decided to add the Bible verses to the chain's cups and burger wrappers. "Hamburgers are so popular," his pastor at the Calvary Chapel explained. "He thought it was a great way to awaken people to the fact that the Bible is relevant and has the answers for today's problems." He also relied heavily on his wise mother, who referred to company executives as "my boys" and continued to show up to headquarters at 7:30am every day.

In 1992, In-N-Out Burger celebrated the opening of their 80 th location in Las Vegas. A year later, tragedy struck. On December 15, 1993, the newly married Rich was killed when his private plane crashed during descent into John Wayne Airport. His right-hand man Phil West was also killed, along with three other men. The company was devastated, although in true In-N-Out fashion, they only released this understated tribute;

[Rich] was the type of person who did a lot more than just talk about taking care of his associates. He nurtured them and wanted them to know how very important they are to the success of the company. Thanks to Richard Snyder, In-N-Out Burger is a great place to work.

Only the day before, Rich had been in Northern California to see his ten-year-old niece Lynsi perform in a pageant. While at the pageant, he had talked to his brother, Guy, with whom he had barely been on speaking terms for many years. Prophetically he tried to make peace with his older brother, telling Guy, "We might not see each other again. You're my brother, and I love you."

Now Guy and his small daughter, Lynsi, were the only two heirs left. Guy, whose addiction now ran rampant, was named "Chairman" of the company, while Esther became president. Lynsi continued to attend the private Christian school her parents had founded for her in Northern California, rarely allowed to see the troubled father she adored. "I was a daddy's girl," she said recently. "Because of my dad's struggle with addiction, I have a great love for addicts."

As Guy's addictions deepened, he would often hole up in his old motor home trailer, which was parked inside a seldom-used In-N-Out warehouse in Baldwin Park. Day to day operations were handled by Esther and her "boys," and the company's expansion continued unabated. By 1997, In-N-Out boasted 124 locations. In 1999, Guy Snyder died of an accidental drug overdose. At 79, Esther Snyder had lost both of her children, and had a growing empire to run and one grandchild on which to place the burden of the In-N-Out legacy.

The next decade would be internally devastating to In-N-Out. Lynsi, who married her first husband soon after finishing high school, was included more in day-to-day operations at In-N-Out, much to the wary old guard's chagrin. "I'm a lot like my dad, a bit of a daredevil. I like an adrenaline rush," she said in a recent interview. "My dad took me to the racetrack for the first time when I was 2 or 3...Anything with a motor, that was in my blood."

The internal divisions within the company turned nasty in 2006, when longtime vice president Richard Boyd sued In-N-Out for "breach of contract, tortuous interference with contract and defamation." He claimed Lynsi and her second husband were attempting to wrestle control away from the elderly Esther, and had forced employees to attend Bible studies and pray at meetings. In-N-Out immediately countersued.

In heartbreaking tapes that were released during the scandal, a befuddled Esther, who saw her work family crumbling, told Boyd's wife, "I think they're taking all my friends away from me." In the end, the matter was privately resolved, and Boyd left the company after over twenty years. "By far the most upsetting is his fabrication about the relationship between me and my gramma," Lynsi stated at the time. "Plain and simple, I love and respect my gram so much and am deeply upset by the pain that Mr. Boyd's lawsuit has caused my family and me."

Esther died later that year, leaving 24-year-old Lynsi in charge of the billion dollar company. In the past decade rifts have appeared to heal at In-N-Out Burger, and the old guard has merged with the new. The family-owned, privately held chain has expanded to 310 stores across the Southwest. Lynsi continues to be a mystery. She rarely grants interviews and keeps out of the spotlight-due in part to two kidnapping attempts she claims to have survived as a young adult.

Lynsi plans to keep In-N-Out in the family. She recently said that she would never franchise the chain or take it public. "The only reason we would do that is for the money, and I wouldn't do it," she said. "My heart is totally connected to this company because of my family, and the fact that they are not here--I have a strong tie to keep this the way they would want it."
Further Reading:
In-N-Out Burger: A Behind-the-Counter Look at the Fast-Food Chain That Breaks All the Rules by Stacy Perman.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Triumph and Tragedy of In-N-Out's First Family

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Keep it real simple. Do one thing and do it the best you can." - Harry Snyder Today, the heart of In-N-Out Burger is still located in the same one-mile radius in Baldwin Park where the iconic restaurant began almost seventy years ago. A Mediterranean-style office complex dominates the appropriately named Hamburger Lane.

# data[].attributes.body
How to create & sustain organizational culture.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The key to a successful organization is to have a culture based on a strongly held and widely shared set of beliefs that are supported by strategy and structure. When an organization has a strong culture, three things happen: Employees know how top management wants them to respond to any situation, employees believe that the expected response is the proper one, and employees know that they will be rewarded for demonstrating the organization's values.

HR has a vital role in perpetuating a strong culture, starting with recruiting and selecting applicants who will share the organization's beliefs and thrive in that culture. HR also develops orientation, training and performance management programs that outline and reinforce the organization's core values and ensures that appropriate rewards and recognition go to employees who truly embody the values.

This article covers the following topics:

The importance of having a strong organizational culture.

HR's role in fostering a high-performance culture.

Definitions of organizational culture.

Factors that shape an organization's culture.

Considerations in creating and managing organizational culture.

HR practices to ensure the continuity and success of an organization's culture.

Communications, metrics, legal, technology and global issues pertaining to organizational culture.

Background

An organization's culture defines the proper way to behave within the organization. This culture consists of shared beliefs and values established by leaders and then communicated and reinforced through various methods, ultimately shaping employee perceptions, behaviors and understanding. Organizational culture sets the context for everything an enterprise does. Because industries and situations vary significantly, there is not a one-size-fits-all culture template that meets the needs of all organizations.

A strong culture is a common denominator among the most successful companies. All have consensus at the top regarding cultural priorities, and those values focus not on individuals but on the organization and its goals. Leaders in successful companies live their cultures every day and go out of their way to communicate their cultural identities to employees as well as prospective new hires. They are clear about their values and how those values define their organizations and determine how the organizations run. See What does it mean to be a values-based organization?

Conversely, an ineffective culture can bring down the organization and its leadership. Disengaged employees, high turnover, poor customer relations and lower profits are examples of how the wrong culture can negatively impact the bottom line.

Mergers and acquisitions are fraught with culture issues. Even organizational cultures that have worked well may develop into a dysfunctional culture after a merger. Research has shown that two out of three mergers fail because of cultural problems. Blending and redefining the cultures, and reconciling the differences between them, build a common platform for the future. In recent years, the fast pace of mergers and acquisitions has changed the way businesses now meld. The focus in mergers has shifted away from blending cultures and has moved toward meeting specific business objectives. Some experts believe that if the right business plan and agenda are in place during a merger, a strong corporate culture will develop naturally. See Managing Organizational Change and Managing Human Resources in Mergers and Acquisitions.

Business Case

If an organization's culture is going to improve the organization's overall performance, the culture must provide a strategic competitive advantage, and beliefs and values must be widely shared and firmly upheld. A strong culture can bring benefits such as enhanced trust and cooperation, fewer disagreements and more-efficient decision-making. Culture also provides an informal control mechanism, a strong sense of identification with the organization and shared understanding among employees about what is important. Employees whose organizations have strongly defined cultures can also justify their behaviors at work because those behaviors fit the culture. See Toxic Workplace Cultures Hurt Workers and Company Profits.

Company leaders play an instrumental role in shaping and sustaining organizational culture. If the executives themselves do not fit into an organization's culture, they often fail in their jobs or quit due to poor fit. Consequently, when organizations hire C-suite executives, these individuals should have both the requisite skills and the ability to fit into the company culture. See HR Can't Change Company Culture by Itself.

Culture plays a vital role in an organization's success. Therefore, HR leaders and other members of the HR team should foster a high-performance organizational culture. See How to Practice HR on Purpose.

HR leaders are responsible for ensuring that culture management is a core focus of their organization's competitive efforts. For HR leaders to influence culture, they need to work with senior management to identify what the organizational culture should look like. Strategic thinking and planning must extend beyond merely meeting business goals and focus more intently on an organization's most valuable asset-its people.

HR has been described as the "caretaker" of organizational culture. In carrying out this essential role, all members of the HR team should help build and manage a strong culture by:

Being a role model for the organization's beliefs.

Reinforcing organizational values.

Ensuring that organizational ethics are defined, understood and practiced.

Enabling two-way communications and feedback channels.

Defining roles, responsibilities and accountabilities.

Providing continuous learning and training.

Sustaining reward and recognition systems.

Encouraging empowerment and teams.

Promoting a customer-supplier work environment.

Recognizing and solving individual and organizational problems and issues.

What Is Organizational Culture?

For HR professionals to have any impact on culture, they must first have a thorough understanding of what culture is in a general sense and what their organization's specific culture is. At the deepest level, an organization's culture is based on values derived from basic assumptions about the following:

Human nature. Are people inherently good or bad, mutable or immutable, proactive or reactive? These basic assumptions lead to beliefs about how employees, customers and suppliers should interact and how they should be managed.

The organization's relationship to its environment.How does the organization define its business and its constituencies?

Appropriate emotions. Which emotions should people be encouraged to express, and which ones should be suppressed?

Effectiveness. What metrics show whether the organization and its individual components are doing well? An organization will be effective only when the culture is supported by an appropriate business strategy and a structure that is appropriate for both the business and the desired culture.

Culture is a nebulous concept and is often an undefined aspect of an organization. Although extensive academic literature exists relating to the topic of organizational culture, there is no generally accepted definition of culture. Instead, the literature expresses many different views as to what organizational culture is.

Organizational culture can manifest itself in a variety of ways, including leadership behaviors, communication styles, internally distributed messages and corporate celebrations. Given that culture comprises so many elements, it is not surprising that terms for describing specific cultures vary widely. Some commonly used terms for describing cultures include aggressive, customer-focused, innovative, fun, ethical, research-driven, technology-driven, process-oriented, hierarchical, family-friendly and risk-taking.

Because culture is difficult to define, organizations may have trouble maintaining consistency in their messages about culture. Employees may also find it difficult to identify and communicate about perceived cultural inconsistencies. and See Defining Organizational Culture Culture Conversation Starters.

Factors That Shape an Organization's Culture

Organizational leaders often speak about the unusual natures of their company cultures, seeing their domains as special places to work. But organizations such as Disney and Nordstrom, which are well-known for their unique cultures, are rare. See Viewpoint: 3 Steps to Cultivating a Customized Culture.

Most company cultures are not that different from one another. Even organizations in disparate industries such as manufacturing and health care tend to share a common core of cultural values. For example, most private-sector companies want to grow and increase revenues. Most strive to be team-oriented and to demonstrate concern for others. Most are driven, rather than relaxed, because they are competing for dollars and market share. Some of the cultural characteristics that distinguish most organizations include the following.

Values

At the heart of organizations' cultures are commonly shared values. None is right or wrong, but organizations need to decide which values they will emphasize. These common values include:

Outcome orientation. Emphasizing achievements and results.

People orientation. Insisting on fairness, tolerance and respect for the individual.

Team orientation. Emphasizing and rewarding collaboration.

Attention to detail. Valuing precision and approaching situations and problems analytically.

Stability. Providing security and following a predictable course.

Innovation. Encouraging experimentation and risk-taking.

Aggressiveness. Stimulating a fiercely competitive spirit.

See Trust Engenders Trust: A Q&A with Paul J. Zak.

Degree of hierarchy

The degree of hierarchy is the extent to which the organization values traditional channels of authority. The three distinct levels of hierarchy are "high"-having a well-defined organizational structure and an expectation that people will work through official channels; "moderate"-having a defined structure but an acceptance that people often work outside formal channels; and "low" -having loosely defined job descriptions and accepting that people challenge authority.

An organization with a high level of hierarchy tends to be more formal and moves more slowly than an organization with a low level of hierarchy.

Degree of urgency

The degree of urgency defines how quickly the organization wants or needs to drive decision-making and innovation. Some organizations choose their degree of urgency, but others have it thrust on them by the marketplace.

A culture with high levels of urgency has a need to push projects through quickly and a high need to respond to a changing marketplace. A moderate level of urgency moves projects at a reasonable pace. A low level of urgency means people work slowly and consistently, valuing quality over efficiency. An organization with high urgency tends to be fast-paced and supports a decisive management style. An organization with low urgency tends to be more methodical and supports a more considered management style.

People orientation or task orientation

Organizations usually have a dominant way of valuing people and tasks. An organization with a strong people orientation tends to put people first when making decisions and believes that people drive the organization's performance and productivity. An organization with a strong task orientation tends to put tasks and processes first when making decisions and believes that efficiency and quality drive organization performance and productivity.

Some organizations may get to choose their people and task orientations. But others may have to fit their orientation to the nature of their industry, historical issues or operational processes.

Functional orientation

Every organization puts an emphasis on certain functional areas. Examples of functional orientations may include marketing, operations, research and development, engineering or service. For example, an innovative organization known for its research and development may have at its core a functional orientation toward R&D. A hospitality company may focus on operations or service, depending on its historical choices and its definition in the marketplace.

Employees from different functions in the company may think that their functional areas are the ones that drive the organization. Organizational leaders must understand what most employees perceive to be the company's functional orientation. See Building a Customer-Centric Culture: Five Lessons Learned.

Organizational subcultures

Any organization can have a mix of subcultures in addition to the dominant culture. Subcultures exist among groups or individuals who may have their own rituals and traditions that, although not shared by the rest of the organization, can deepen and underscore the organization's core values. Subcultures can also cause serious problems.

For example, regional cultures often differ from the overall culture that top leadership tries to instill. Perhaps aggressiveness that is common in one area may not mesh with a culture emphasizing team building. Or an organization with a culture built around equality may have trouble if the national culture emphasizes hierarchy and expects people to bow to authority. Managers and HR professionals must recognize those differences and address them directly.

Creating and Managing Organizational Culture

An organizational culture tends to emerge over time, shaped by the organization's leadership and by actions and values perceived to have contributed to earlier successes. A company culture can be managed through the cultural awareness of organizational leaders and HR professionals. Managing a culture takes focused efforts to sustain elements of the culture that support organizational effectiveness. See Addressing the Six Sources of Workplace Cultural Conflicts.

How culture develops

An organization's customs, traditions, rituals, behavioral norms, symbols and general way of doing things are the visible manifestation of its culture; they are what one sees when walking into the organization. The current organizational culture is usually due to factors that have worked well for the organization in the past. See How to Create a Culture of Civility.

Founders typically have a significant impact on an organization's early culture. Over time, behavioral norms develop that are consistent with the organization's values. For example, in some organizations, resolution of conflicts is hashed out openly and noisily to create widespread consensus, whereas in other places disputes are settled hierarchically and quietly behind closed doors.

Though culture emerges naturally in most organizations, strong cultures often begin with a process called "values blueprinting," which involves a candid conversation with leaders from across the organization. Once the culture is framed, an organization may establish a values committee that has a direct link to leadership. This group makes sure the desired culture is alive and well. For values blueprinting to work, organizations must first hire people who live the values and have the competency needed to perform the job.

Sustaining a culture

The management of organizational culture starts with identifying a company's organizational culture traits or "artifacts." Artifacts are the core business activities, processes and philosophies that characterize how an organization does business day-to-day.

Identifying these traits-and assessing their importance in light of current business objectives-is a way to start managing culture. Three broad concepts help identify the traits specific to a culture:

Social culture. This refers to group members' roles and responsibilities. It is the study of class distinctions and the distribution of power that exists in any group.

Material culture. This involves examining everything that people in a group make or achieve and the ways people work with and support one another in exchanging required goods and services.

Ideological culture. This is tied to a group's values, beliefs and ideals-the things people view as fundamental. It includes the emotional and intellectual guidelines that govern people's daily existence and interactions.

Leaders and HR professionals within an organization should approach culture management by initially gaining an understanding of the common traits found in all businesses. Then, they should take the following steps to manage their organization's culture:

Identify common artifacts or traits, including those from the standpoint of an organization's social, material and ideological culture.

Convene groups of employees-representatives from all levels, functions and locations of the organization-to assess the validity, significance and currency of key artifacts.

Subject those traits to a rigorous assessment of their underlying shared assumptions, values and beliefs.

Summarize findings and share them with all participants to solicit additional insights.

Create a culture management action plan. The plan should enhance traits that support corporate growth or organizational effectiveness and correct traits that might hinder a company's advancement.

Typically, shared assumptions and beliefs originate with an organization's founders and leaders. Because those beliefs proved successful (otherwise the company would not exist and the leaders would not be in their positions), often they go unchallenged; however, those assumptions and beliefs might be outdated and may hinder future success. See 6 Steps for Building an Inclusive Workplace.

HR Practices to Develop Culture

HR has a special role in ensuring that an organization's culture will continue and thrive. When an organization does a good job assessing its culture, it can then go on to establish HR policies, programs and strategies that support and strengthen its core purpose and values. In aligned organizations, the same core characteristics or beliefs motivate and unite everyone, cascading down from the C-suite to individual contributors.

HR professionals have many tools for developing and sustaining a high-performance organizational culture, including hiring practices, onboarding efforts, recognition programs and performance management programs. HR's biggest challenge is deciding how to use these tools and how to allocate resources appropriately. See Taming the Savage Culture: A Q&A with Tim Mulligan.

Hiring practices

The central role that HR plays in helping an organization capitalize on its culture is in hiring. HR has the opportunity to select people who fit the way the organization operates. Traditionally, hiring focuses primarily on an applicant's skills, but when a hire's personality also fits with the organization's culture, the employee will be more likely to deliver superior performance. See Finance Sector Needs New Focus on Culture to Attract Talent and Candidates Choose Jobs Because of Company Culture.

On the other hand, ill-fitting hires and subsequent rapid departures cost approximately 50 percent to 150 percent of the position's annual salary. Unfortunately, nearly one in three newly hired employees' leaves voluntarily or involuntarily within a year of hiring, and this number has been increasing steadily in recent years. See 5 Unique Interview Questions Every Recruiter Should Ask.

Some hiring practices to ensure cultural fit include these:

Looking at each piece of the organization's vision, mission and values statements. Interview questions should hone in on behaviors that complement these areas. For example, if the organization works with a lot of intensity, then job applicants should display that natural intensity to be considered for hire.

Conducting a cultural fit interview. Ask questions that elicit comments about organizational values such as honesty or integrity. If a candidate's description of the worst place he or she ever worked sounds just like the organization where he or she is interviewing, the candidate probably will not be successful.

Leaving discussion of company culture for later. Do not tell candidates about culture up front. First,listen to what they have to say about their experiences and beliefs. This tactic will reveal more candid responses to help determine whether they are a fit for the organization.

Making sure at least three people are involved in the hiring process. Different people will see and hear different things. These varied perspectives give a clearer understanding of the person being considered for hire.

Searching for employees who will fit in seamlessly can have drawbacks. The biggest mistake an organization can make is to paint an inaccurate picture of itself as it tries to attract candidates. If new hires discover they have been sold a bill of goods, they will not be happy; they will probably not stick around, and, while they are around, morale will decline.

Another possible drawback is that people are more reluctant to take negative actions against people like themselves. As a result, mediocre workers are more likely to stay employed if they share the cultural values. Similarly, although an organization's comfort level is palpable when the culture is aligned, experts say, too much comfort can result in groupthink and complacency.

Onboarding programs

HR plays a primary role in socializing new employees by designing and overseeing the onboarding process. Onboarding teaches newcomers the employer's value system, norms and desired organizational behaviors. HR professionals must help newcomers become part of social networks in the organization and make sure that they have early job experiences that reinforce the culture. See Managing the Employee Onboarding and Assimilation Process.

Reward and recognition programs

These programs are key mechanisms HR can use to motivate employees to act in accordance with the organization's culture and values. For example, if teamwork is a core value, bonuses should value teamwork and not be based on individual performance. HR should also put the spotlight on those who personify the company's values. See Who's at the CENTRE of your recognition program? and Employee Recognition Tech Must Align with Company Culture.

Performance management programs

Employees who share values and aspirations tend to outperform those in environments that lack cohesiveness and common purposes. Performance management programs can greatly affect corporate culture by clearly outlining what is expected from employees as well as by providing a feedback tool that informs employees about proper behavior. See Performance Management That Makes a Difference: An Evidence-Based Approach.

Communications

Conflicting messages regarding corporate culture may create distrust and cynicism, which can prompt, or help employees justify, actions as deleterious as embezzlement. Experts say that cultural inconsistencies may also cause workers to grow discouraged, to believe management is disingenuous, to doubt statements from higher-ups and to be less inclined to give their best effort.

Organizations may be investing significant time and money in creating a culture but may not be reaping the commensurate rewards-especially if executives, supervisors and rank-and-file employees have differing perceptions of the company's culture. HR professionals must therefore ensure that the organization clearly and consistently communicates its culture to all employees. See HR's Role in Creating a Culture of High Trust: Q&A with Richard Fagerlin.

Metrics

Assessing organizational culture is a crucial step in developing sound HR strategies that support enterprise objectives and goals. But how do you measure something as potentially tough to describe as culture? After identifying the key dimensions of culture such as values, degree of hierarchy, and people and task orientations, performing these next steps will help organizations assess culture:

Develop a cultural assessment instrument. This instrument should enable members of the organization to rate the organization on the key cultural dimensions, as well as on aspects of the organization not covered on the assessment.

Administer the assessment. Survey respondents should include individuals at all levels, functions, divisions and geographical units of the organization.

Analyze and communicate about assessment results. Leaders and HR executives should discuss areas of agreement and disagreement about the organization's culture.

Conduct employee focus groups. Just because top management leaders agree on organizational culture does not mean that all employees see things that way.

Discuss culture until consensus forms around key issues. Focus on "Who are we?" and "What makes us who we are?" Organizations that decide that where they are now is not where they want to be may need to look at moving the organization to embrace a different culture.

Cultural assessments, and other activities such as cultural audits and 360-degree feedback, may also help uncover cultural inconsistencies. Then leaders and HR professionals can eliminate the inconsistencies. For example, if customer service is a focus of the company's culture, evaluate how much time employees spend visiting customer sites, how much interaction they have with customers, what customer service training they receive and other indicators of a customer service focus. See The New Analytics of Workplace Culture

Legal Issues

Employers that emphasize cultural fit in their recruitment and selection process can be vulnerable to discrimination claims if they are not careful. HR professionals should ensure that hiring practices and selection decisions based on a cultural fit rationale do not result in discriminating against any applicants who may not be "just like" the selectors.

Employers should also be aware that certain types of organizational cultures (for example, cultures that are highly paternalistic or male-dominated) may tend to perpetuate disparities in promotions, compensation and other terms of employment. Those disparities may violate anti-discrimination laws. See In Focus: Latest Lawsuits Shine Light on Racist, Sexist Workplace Cultures and Address the Small Infractions to Create an Inclusive Culture.

Global Issues

Research suggests that national culture has a greater effect on employees than the culture of their organization. Organizational leaders and HR professionals should understand the national cultural values in the countries in which the organization operates to ensure that management and HR practices are appropriate and will be effective in operations in those countries. National cultural differences should be considered when implementing organizational culture management initiatives in global businesses.

Managers must be able to respond to nuances in communication styles, as well as deal with different expectations that employees have of their leaders across national cultures. Not meeting those expectations may doom the global organization's chance for success in particular countries.

These issues become even more complex in global business mergers. Success in international mergers depends on the merged organization's willingness to enable people with different cultural perspectives to engage in meaningful and valuable discussions about the new business.

See:
Helping Expatriate Employees Deal with Culture Shock 3 Steps in Aligning Culture Across the Globe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The key to a successful organization is to have a culture based on a strongly held and widely shared set of beliefs that are supported by strategy and structure.

# data[].attributes.body
"SWOT Analysis is a useful technique for understanding your Strengths and Weaknesses, and for identifying both the Opportunities open to you and the Threats you face."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
How to Do a SWOT Analysis

Avoid relying on your own, partial understanding of your organization. Your assumptions could be wrong. Instead, gather a team of people from a range of functions and levels to build a broad and insightful list of observations.

Then, every time you identify a Strength, Weakness, Opportunity, or Threat, write it down in the relevant part of the SWOT analysis grid for all to see.

Let's look at each area in more detail and consider what fits where, and what questions you could ask as part of your data gathering.

Strengths

Strengths are things that your organization does particularly well, or in a way that distinguishes you from your competitors. Think about the advantages your organization has over other organizations. These might be the motivation of your staff, access to certain materials, or a strong set of manufacturing processes.

Then turn your perspective around and ask yourself what your competitors might see as your strengths. What factors mean that you get the sale ahead of them?

Remember, any aspect of your organization is only a strength if it brings you a clear advantage. For example, if all of your competitors provide high-quality products, then a high-quality production process is not a strength in your market: it's a necessity.

Weaknesses

Weaknesses, like strengths, are inherent features of your organization, so focus on your people, resources, systems, and procedures. Think about what you could improve, and the sorts of practices you should avoid.

Once again, imagine (or find out) how other people in your market see you. Do they notice weaknesses that you tend to be blind to? Take time to examine how and why your competitors are doing better than you. What are you lacking?

Be honest! A SWOT analysis will only be valuable if you gather all the information you need. So, it's best to be realistic now, and face any unpleasant truths as soon as possible.

Opportunities

Opportunities are openings or chances for something positive to happen, but you'll need to claim them for yourself!

They usually arise from situations outside your organization, and require an eye to what might happen in the future. They might arise as developments in the market you serve, or in the technology you use. Being able to spot and exploit opportunities can make a huge difference to your organization's ability to compete and take the lead in your market.

Think about good opportunities that you can exploit immediately. These don't need to be game-changers: even small advantages can increase your organization's competitiveness. What interesting market trends are you aware of, large or small, which could have an impact?

You should also watch out for changes in government policy related to your field. And changes in social patterns, population profiles, and lifestyles can all throw up interesting opportunities.

Threats

Threats include anything that can negatively affect your business from the outside, such as supply-chain problems, shifts in market requirements, or a shortage of recruits. It's vital to anticipate threats and to take action against them before you become a victim of them and your growth stalls.

Think about the obstacles you face in getting your product to market and selling. You may notice that quality standards or specifications for your products are changing, and that you'll need to change those products if you're to stay in the lead. Evolving technology is an ever-present threat, as well as an opportunity!

Always consider what your competitors are doing, and whether you should be changing your organization's emphasis to meet the challenge. But remember that what they're doing might not be the right thing for you to do. So, avoid copying them without knowing how it will improve your position.

Be sure to explore whether your organization is especially exposed to external challenges. Do you have bad debt or cash-flow problems, for example, that could make you vulnerable to even small changes in your market? This is the kind of threat that can seriously damage your business, so be alert.

A SWOT Analysis Example

Imagine this scenario: a small start-up consultancy wants a clear picture of its current situation, to decide on a future strategy for growth. The team gathers, and draws up the SWOT Analysis shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. A Completed SWOT Analysis.

Strengths What do you do well? What unique resources can you draw on? What do others see as your strengths?

Weaknesses What could you improve? Where do you have fewer resources than others? What are others likely to see as weaknesses?

We are able to respond very quickly as we have no red tape, and no need for higher management approval.

We are able to give really good customer care, as the current small amount of work means we have plenty of time to devote to customers.

Our lead consultant has a strong reputation in the market.

We can change direction quickly if we find that our marketing is not working.

We have low overheads, so we can offer good value to customers.

Our company has little market presence or reputation.

We have a small staff, with a shallow skills base in many areas.

We are vulnerable to vital staff being sick or leaving.

Our cash flow will be unreliable in the early stages.

Opportunities What opportunities are open to you? What trends could you take advantage of? How can you turn your strengths into opportunities?

Threats What threats could harm you? What is your competition doing? What threats do your weaknesses expose to you?

Our business sector is expanding, with many future opportunities for success.

Local government wants to encourage local businesses.

Our competitors may be slow to adopt new technologies.

Developments in technology may change this market beyond our ability to adapt.

A small change in the focus of a large competitor might wipe out any market position we achieve.

As a result of the team's analysis, it's clear that the consultancy's main strengths lie in its agility, technical expertise, and low overheads. These allow it to offer excellent customer service to a relatively small client base.

The company's weaknesses are also to do with its size. It will need to invest in training, to improve the skills base of the small staff. It'll also need to focus on retention, so it doesn't lose key team members.

There are opportunities in offering rapid-response, good-value services to local businesses and to local government organizations. The company can likely be first to market with new products and services, given that its competitors are slow adopters.

The threats require the consultancy to keep up-to-date with changes in technology. It also needs to keep a close eye on its largest competitors, given its vulnerability to large-scale changes in its market. To counteract this, the business needs to focus its marketing on selected industry websites, to get the greatest possible market presence on a small advertising budget.

Frequently Asked Questions About SWOT Analysis

1. Who Invented SWOT Analysis?

2. What Does SWOT Analysis Stand For?

SWOT Analysis stands for Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats.

3. What Can a SWOT Analysis Be Used For?

SWOT analysis is a useful tool to help you determine your organization's position in the market. You can then use this information to create an informed strategy suited to your needs and capabilities.

4. How Do I Write a SWOT Analysis?

5. How Do SWOT Analysis and the TOWS Matrix compare?

6. What Are the Biggest SWOT Analysis Mistakes?

Making your lists too long. Ask yourself if your ideas are feasible as you go along.

Being vague. Be specific to provide more focus for later discussions.

Not seeing weaknesses. Be sure to ask customers and colleagues what they experience in real life.

Not thinking ahead. It's easy to come up with nice ideas without taking them through to their logical conclusion. Always consider their practical impact.

Being unrealistic. Don't plan in detail for opportunities that don't exist yet. For example, that export market you've been eyeing may be available at some point, but the trade negotiations to open it up could take years.

Relying on SWOT Analysis alone. SWOT Analysis is valuable. But when you use it alongside other planning tools (SOAR, TOWS or PEST), the results will be more vigorous.

How to Use a SWOT Analysis

Use a SWOT Analysis to assess your organization's current position before you decide on any new strategy. Find out what's working well, and what's not so good. Ask yourself where you want to go, how you might get there - and what might get in your way.

Once you've examined all four aspects of SWOT, you'll want to build on your strengths, boost your weaker areas, head off any threats, and exploit every opportunity. In fact, you'll likely be faced with a long list of potential actions.

But before you go ahead, be sure to develop your ideas further. Look for potential connections between the quadrants of your matrix. For example, could you use some of your strengths to open up further opportunities? And, would even more opportunities become available by eliminating some of your weaknesses?

Finally, it's time to ruthlessly prune and prioritize your ideas, so that you can focus time and money on the most significant and impactful ones. Refine each point to make your comparisons clearer. For example, only accept precise, verifiable statements such as, "Cost advantage of $30/ton in sourcing raw material x," rather than, "Better value for money."

SWOT Analysis Tips

Here are four tips for getting more out of a SWOT analysis:

1. Be specific. The more focused and accurate you are about the points you write down, the more useful your SWOT analysis will be.

2. Work backwards. Experiment with filling in the four sections of your SWOT analysis in a different order, to stimulate new ways of thinking. Working backwards, in particular, from threats to strengths, may cast new light on the situation.

3. Get together. Highlight the most useful people to contribute to your SWOT analysis, then gather information and ideas from them all.

4. SWOT your competition! To stay ahead of your competitors, carry out a regular SWOT analysis on them. Use everything you know about them to evaluate their situation, and use SWOT analysis to plan your competitive strategies accordingly.

SWOT Analysis Infographic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
SWOT Analysis With SWOT Templates and Examples !

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SWOT Analysis is a simple but powerful framework for analyzing your organization's strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. Includes template. Access on-demand resources, expert videos by becoming a Mind Tools member now!!

# data[].attributes.body
Good break down of the SWOT analysis.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Introduction to the SWOT analysis - strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats...

# data[].attributes.body
How good managers know how and to whom to delegate jobs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Managers have some tasks that they need to do, but their primary job is to make sure that others are doing what they have been assigned to accomplish the mission and goals of the organization. Effective managers know what responsibilities to delegate to allow themselves time to plan, to collaborate with others in the organization, and to monitor the performance of their employees, making sure to give them adequate feedback and development opportunities.

Often, managers think that they are delegating when they assign tasks to employees. Sometimes this is merely dumping on people. Real delegation is assigning responsibility for outcomes along with the authority to do what is needed to produce the desired results.

Why is this not done well in most organizations? A major factor is the failure of organizations to assure that the supervisors and managers know how to delegate effectively. Many managers have never received training in delegation.

Other reasons why managers do not delegate as much as they could include:

The belief that employees cannot do the job as well as the manager can.

The belief that it takes less time to do the work than it takes to delegate the responsibility.

Lack of trust in employees' motivation and commitment to quality.

The need to make one's self indispensable.

The enjoyment of doing the work one's self.

Guilt associated with giving more work to an overworked staff.

Some reasons for not delegating are legitimate. For example, if an organization is understaffed or managers have no one reporting to them, obviously it is very difficult to delegate responsibilities. However, most such arguments do not stand up to rational analysis. Managers need to delegate because they are not supposed to do all of the work themselves. They need to interact with other managers about goals; plan for possible changes in economic conditions, competitive factors and the like; and communicate with other managers about how to improve operations and develop new strategies. In addition, managers need to devote time to their own development through training and by keeping up with technology and other innovations relevant to their industry and their organization.
Managers are responsible for developing their employees to ensure that they are well trained, to identify future leaders, and to prepare their own successor when they move up or move on to other organizations. Delegating responsibility is a powerful statement to employees about how much they are trusted and how competent and valued they are considered to be to the company.

Delegator's Dozen: A Preparation Checklist

1. Keep a delegation attitude. Ask yourself frequently: "Who else could do this?" Question every task, particularly those you have done for years.

2. Define the desired outcome. Ask: "What is the result I want accomplished?" Learn to assign responsibility for achieving results rather than unloading tasks.

3. Select the person. Consider more than one criterion when choosing to whom to delegate something. Some things to consider: Who has experience and skills? (Be careful not to overload this person.) Who needs to learn how to handle this responsibility? Who has the time to accept this responsibility? Who would like to have this opportunity?

4. Get input from others. Ask for ideas about what to change, who to involve and how to define the results. Consult one's own team, other managers who interact with the team, one's boss and customers.

5. Assign the responsibility and define the time factors. What is the deadline? When will you want progress reports?

6. Provide training and guidance. Does the person need training before assuming this responsibility? What guidance will they need to succeed? Remember to allow them freedom for independent thinking.

7. Define the authority level. How much power will they need? What kinds of power? Who else needs to know that this person has the authority to act? Be sure to inform them to assure cooperation with the employee.

8. Agree about the control process. What kinds of controls are needed? How can one feel in control and still empower employees to act independently?

9. Monitor progress. Pay attention and maintain control of the situation. Managers are still responsible for the success or failure of this person and for achieving the desired results.

10. Provide feedback. Stay in touch, giving plenty of positive reinforcement and coaching when needed.

11. Identify the lessons learned. What did the employee learn? What did you learn? Often, the person with the new responsibility will figure out better ways to get things done and such improvements need to be identified, documented and shared.

12. Evaluate performance. Give the person helpful feedback. What did they do well? Where can they improve? How can the results be improved? How can the manager do a better job of helping them succeed?

Once managers have prepared to delegate certain responsibilities, the next step is to communicate with the person or person chosen to handle the newly assigned responsibility. Following is a four-part communication process that can help ensure successful delegation.

Meet face to face without time pressure. This is very important communication, and face-to-face interaction is the approach most likely to convey the message that this discussion is important. Make arrangements so that you are not interrupted. Explain why the person was selected for the assignment and what results need to be achieved. Remember, you are assigning responsibility for producing outcomes-not just performing tasks. Encourage the other to ask questions. This needs to be a dialogue, not a monologue. Be sure to agree about timing and the control process by the end of the discussion.

Confirm employees' understanding and commitment. This is a common failure in delegation discussions. It is very important for managers to confirm that those to whom they've delegated responsibility have understood what they need to know; ask them to restate what has been said. Asking, "Do you understand?" almost always elicits the answers "Yes" or "I think so" even if the employee is totally confused. Do not, however, come across as testing them. Instead, say, "I want to be sure that I have communicated what I have intended to communicate. Will you please tell me what you have heard so far?" This communicates that you want to make sure that you have communicated without suggesting anything negative about the other's listening abilities.

Define employee's authority level. What kind of power will the person need to accomplish the results? Inform whoever else needs to know that you have delegated this responsibility to ensure their cooperation with the employee.

Follow up and provide coaching and guidance if needed. Don't abandon the person. You are delegating, not abdicating. Be available for questions and to help resolve resistance from others. But remember not to look over the shoulders of those to whom you have delegated responsibility. Instead, provide feedback to reinforce what has been done well and to help them learn when they make mistakes or encounter problems that require learning. Mark the calendar for checkpoint dates and updates on progress.

Sam R. Lloyd is president of the training firm SuccessSystems, Inc. and author of the book Accountability: Managing for Maximum Results (Course Technology (Thomson, 2002).
Adapted with permission from SuccessSystems, Inc. © 2012. SuccessSystems, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Managers Must Delegate Effectively to Develop Employees

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Effective managers know what responsibilities to delegate in order to accomplish the mission and goals of the organization.

# data[].attributes.body
Three things to consider that are connected to delegating assignments.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It is necessary to have brief understanding of three terms intimately connected with the concept and process of delegation.

These terms are: 1) Responsibility, 2) Authority, and 3) Accountability.

Responsibility indicates the duty assigned to a position. The person holding the position has to perform the duty assigned. It is his responsibility. The term responsibility is often referred to as an obligation to perform a particular task assigned to a subordinate. In an organisation, responsibility is the duty as per the guidelines issued.

According to Davis, "Responsibility is an obligation of individual to perform assigned duties to the best of his ability under the direction of his executive leader." In the words of Theo Haimann, "Responsibility is the obligation of a subordinate to perform the duty as required by his superior".

McFarland defines responsibility as "the duties and activities assigned to a position or an executive".

1. The essence of responsibility is the obligation of a subordinate to perform the duty assigned.

2. It always originates from the superior-subordinate relationship.

3. Normally, responsibility moves upwards, whereas authority flows downwards.

4. Responsibility is in the form of a continuing obligation.

5. Responsibility cannot be delegated.

6. The person accepting responsibility is accountable for the performance of assigned duties.

7. It is hard to conceive responsibility without authority.

Authority is the right or power assigned to an executive or a manager in order to achieve certain organizational objectives.

A manager will not be able to function efficiently without proper authority. Authority is the genesis of organizational framework. It is an essential accompaniment of the job of management. Without authority, a manager ceases to be a manager, because he cannot get his policies carried out through others. Authority is one of the founding stones of formal and informal organisations. An Organisation cannot survive without authority. It indicates the right and power of making decisions, giving orders and instructions to subordinates. Authority is delegated from above but must be accepted from below i.e. by the subordinates. In other words, authority flows downwards.

According to Henri Fayol, "Authority is the right to give orders and the power to exact obedience."

According to Mooney and Reily, "Authority is the principle at the root of Organisation and so important that it is impossible to conceive of an Organisation at all unless some person or persons are in a position to require action of others."

Every employee/manager is accountable for the job assigned to him. He is supposed to complete the job as per the expectations and inform his superior accordingly. Accountability is the liability created for the use of authority. It is the answerability for performance of the assigned duties.

According, to McFarland, "accountability is the obligation of an individual to report formally to his superior about the work he has done to discharge the responsibility."

When authority is delegated to a subordinate, the person is accountable to the superior for performance in relation to assigned duties. If the subordinate does a poor job, the superior cannot evade the responsibility by stating that poor performance is the fault of the subordinate. A superior is normally responsible for all actions of groups under his supervision even if there are several layers down in the hierarchy. Simply stated, accountability means that the subordinate should explain the factors responsible for non-performance or lack of performance.

They need proper consideration while introducing delegation of authority within an Organisation. In the process of delegation, the superior transfers his duties/responsibilities to his subordinate and also give necessary authority for performing the responsibilities assigned. At the same time, the superior is accountable for the performance of his subordinate.

Related

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
responsibility and accountability in management

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Authority, Responsibility and Accountability In Management

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It is necessary to have brief understanding of three terms intimately connected with the concept and process of delegation. These terms are: 1) Responsibility, 2) Authority, and 3) Accountability. Responsibility indicates the duty assigned to a position. The person holding the position has to perform the duty assigned. It is his responsibility.

# data[].attributes.body
Why culture is taking over the world.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In this guide

For HR leaders, corporate culture is a conundrum. On the one hand, it's vital. Happy, motivated employees working toward shared values deliver a consistent experience to customers, bringing tangible financial rewards.

Brand perceptions stem from an organization's culture. Employees want a good cultural fit-they want viable work/life solutions. Organizations that want employees to bring their whole selves to work need to demonstrate an open and adaptive culture.

On the other hand, it's hard to change culture. It cannot be spoken into existence; it's a product of behaviors, symbols, and mindsets. The tone at the top is critical. Ultimately, culture is a product of behaviors learned and passed down from the CEO and board. But departments, divisions, and subsidiaries also set their own tone, and it shifts as people, products, and customers evolve.

For organizations that want to change-to adapt to new business models, new markets, new employee expectations-culture ought to be a powerful lever. But leaders can only use culture to transform the organization if they understand these interrelationships.

But we can say with certainty that culture is a function of people. And that, if nothing else, makes the management of organizational culture a central issue for HR leaders.

In this guide, you'll find...

Further reading.
If we seem to be missing three big-ticket items, it's because they're covered elsewhere in this series. Check out our three digibooks on Career Management and Development, HR Data and Analytics, and HR Transformation.
Who will find this digibook useful?
HR leaders. Culture goes beyond HR. But it's also an intrinsically human affair. The behaviors and mindsets that define corporate culture are shaped and policed by HR policies and practices. So own it.

C-level execs. No one shapes organizational culture as much as you. It starts with the behaviors of the CEO and their C-level colleagues, then filters down. Understanding how and why that happens is critical if culture is going to supercharge performance, rather than poison it.

Line management. Leadership talks big on culture, and it sincerely wants the best. But making it live day-to-day in teams and departments? It's hard. HR can help. From compensation to employee surveys; from recruitment to diversity; it's the go-to function to translate fine words into practical policies.

Why Culture Is
Taking over the World

"Culture eats strategy for breakfast."

This maxim is commonly ascribed to management guru Peter Drucker. But is it true? And what do we mean by "culture" anyway? Organizations need to create a clear idea of why their corporate culture is important, what it looks like, and how it will be defined and delivered.
Why culture matters.
Here are four touchstones to remind people why they should care, a lot, right now:

Change is a constant now-from disrupted industries and economic uncertainty, to tech-driven transformation and the skills gap. Organizations with engaged employees and strong values are better placed to adapt-and to attract the right talent to meet new needs.

According to Fortune's annual "Best Company to Work For" study, leaders at the best employers are focused on culture as a competitive tool. In one survey, 82 percent of senior managers said culture is a potential competitive advantage.

Great companies to work for also deliver better shareholder performance (see chart, below). And Gallup says organizations with above-average employee engagement see 147 percent higher EPS.

Kotter's 2011 work on culture and performance used 11 years of data to show firms that manage their culture well had revenue increases of 682 percent versus 166 percent for those that didn't.

Great Culture Delivers for Shareholders.

Empirical research at the University of Southern Florida summed it up. As the study team summarized: "Culture causes performance, not vice versa." And in Deloitte's Top 10 Human Capital Trends for 2016, culture trumps everything but leadership and organizational design. Amazing, then, that in the same study only 28 percent of executives said they understand their own organization's culture.
Culture defines behavior.
Culture is no longer soft and fluffy. HR needs to think how it affects its organization's regulatory position. Even the accountants are getting in on the act. The UK's Financial Reporting Council (FRC) has a seven-point guide to building a strong corporate culture. It's a great guide for HR, too:

Recognize its value. "Culture is a valuable asset, a source of competitive advantage, and vital to the creation and protection of long-term value," says the FRC. The board needs to be serious about it, and not just when it's under external scrutiny if there's a problem.

Demonstrate leadership. "Leaders...must embody the desired culture, embedding this at all levels and in every aspect of the business." Put another way, you've got to walk the talk. The FRC adds that the board should act if executives aren't doing so.

Be open and accountable. "Good governance...should be demonstrated in the way the company conducts business and engages with and reports to stakeholders." And that includes employees.

Embed and integrate. HR "should be empowered and resourced to embed values and assess culture effectively. Their voice in the boardroom should be strengthened." (Sounds like these accountants are OK, after all.)

Assess, measure, engage. Leaders need to "understand behavior throughout the company and challenge where they find misalignment with values...[and] devote resources to evaluating culture and consider how they report on it."

Align values and incentives. Rewards "should encourage behaviors consistent with the company's purpose, values, strategy...[and explain] this to...stakeholders." Again, HR is the glue here-from compensation design to internal comms.

Exercise stewardship. "Effective stewardship should include engagement about culture and encourage better reporting." Break out the companion digibook on analytics: HR is going to need clear and reliable metrics.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In this guide For HR leaders, corporate culture is a conundrum. On the one hand, it's vital. Happy, motivated employees working toward shared values deliver a consistent experience to customers, bringing tangible financial rewards. Brand perceptions stem from an organization's culture. Employees want a good cultural fit-they want viable work/life solutions.

# data[].attributes.body
Interesting break down of hiring an executive search firm and how much it costs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How much does it typically cost to hire an executive search firm for a VP Engineering, CFO, C-level executive, or similar?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Answer (1 of 19): The executive search space has gotten very confusing over the past few years so I will break it down. I also answer the "Why would I use a search firm?" question everyone asks when they find out how expensive these firms are. 1.

# data[].attributes.body
How to harness the power of employees.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
How often have you heard somebody - a new CEO, a journalist, a management consultant, a leadership guru, a fellow employee - talk about the urgent need to change the culture? They want to make it world-class. To dispense with all the nonsense and negativity that annoys employees and stops good intentions from growing into progress. To bring about an entirely different approach, starting immediately.

These culture critiques are as common as complaints about the weather - and about as effective. How frequently have you seen high-minded aspirations to "change the culture" actually manage to modify the way that people behave and the way in which they work? And how often have you seen noticeable long-term improvements?

What Is Corporate Culture?

At its worst, culture can be a drag on productivity. At its best, it is an emotional energizer. Here's how companies can use it to gain a competitive advantage.

If the answer to these last two questions is "rarely," it wouldn't surprise us. We don't believe that swift, wholesale culture change is possible - or even desirable. After all, a company's culture is its basic personality, the essence of how its people interact and work. However, it is an elusively complex entity that survives and evolves mostly through gradual shifts in leadership, strategy, and other circumstances. We find the most useful definition is also the simplest: Culture is the self-sustaining pattern of behavior that determines how things are done.

Made of instinctive, repetitive habits and emotional responses, culture can't be copied or easily pinned down. Corporate cultures are constantly self-renewing and slowly evolving: What people feel, think, and believe is reflected and shaped by the way they go about their business. Formal efforts to change a culture (to replace it with something entirely new and different) seldom manage to get to the heart of what motivates people, what makes them tick. Strongly worded memos from on high are deleted within hours. You can plaster the walls with large banners proclaiming new values, but people will go about their days, right beneath those signs, continuing with the habits that are familiar and comfortable.

But this inherent complexity shouldn't deter leaders from trying to use culture as a lever. If you cannot simply replace the entire machine, work on realigning some of the more useful cogs. The name of the game is making use of what you cannot change by using some of the emotional forces within your current culture differently.

Three dimensions of corporate culture affect its alignment: symbolic reminders (artifacts that are entirely visible), keystone behaviors (recurring acts that trigger other behaviors and that are both visible and invisible), and mind-sets (attitudes and beliefs that are widely shared but exclusively invisible). Of these, behaviors are the most powerful determinant of real change. What people actually do matters more than what they say or believe. And so to obtain more positive influences from your cultural situation, you should start working on changing the most critical behaviors - the mind-sets will follow. Over time, altered behavior patterns and habits can produce better results.

You may be asking: If it is so hard to change culture, why should we even bother to try? Because an organization's current culture contains several reservoirs of emotional energy and influence. Executives who work with them can greatly accelerate strategic and operating imperatives. When positive culture forces and strategic priorities are in sync, companies can draw energy from the way people feel. This accelerates a company's movement to gain competitive advantage, or regain advantages that have been lost.

Research shows that companies that use a few specific cultural catalysts - that is to say, those that use informal emotional approaches to influencing behavior - are significantly more likely to experience change that lasts. Of the companies that reported consciously using elements of their culture in Strategy&'s 2013 Global Culture & Change Management Survey, 70 percent said their firms achieved sustainable improvement in organizational pride and emotional commitment. That compares with 35 percent for firms that didn't use culture as a lever. Although there is no magic formula, no brilliant algorithm, no numerical equation that will guarantee results, we have gleaned some valuable insights through decades of research and observation at dozens of enterprises, including some of the most successful companies in the world. By adopting the following principles, your organization can learn to deploy and improve its culture in a manner that will increase the odds of financial and operational success.

1. Work with and within your current cultural situations. Deeply embedded cultures cannot be replaced with simple upgrades, or even with major overhaul efforts. Nor can your culture be swapped out for a new one as though it were an operating system or a CPU. To a degree, your current cultural situation just is what it is - and it contains components that provide natural advantages to companies as well as components that may act as brakes. We've never seen a culture that is all bad, or one that is all good. To work with your culture effectively, therefore, you must understand it, recognize which traits are preeminent and consistent, and discern under what types of conditions these traits are likely to be a help or a hindrance. Put another way, there's both a yin and a yang to cultural traits.

For example, a European pharmaceutical company with a solid product development pipeline had a tendency to be inward-looking. It had great execution capabilities and an excellent record of compliance with regulators around the world. However, when new products were ready to be launched, the company had a hard time marketing them to physicians and healthcare providers. Rather than bemoaning the company's ingrained insularity - for example, its collective tendency to value the opinions of internal colleagues more than those of outside experts - the leaders decided to use this feature of its culture to its advantage. They set up a program through which employees were acknowledged and rewarded by colleagues for "going the extra mile" to support customers. By recognizing a new kind of internal authoritativeness, the company tapped a powerful emotional trigger already in place, and engendered a new (and strategically important) behavior in its sales force.

2. Change behaviors, and mind-sets will follow. It is a commonly held view that behavioral change follows mental shifts, as surely as night follows day. This is why organizations often try to change mind-sets (and ultimately behavior) by communicating values and putting them in glossy brochures. This technique didn't work well for Enron, where accounting fraud and scandal were part of everyday practice, even as the company's espoused values of excellence, respect, integrity, and communication were carved into the marble floor of the atrium of its global headquarters in Houston. In reality, culture is much more a matter of doing than of saying. Trying to change a culture purely through top-down messaging, training and development programs, and identifiable cues seldom changes people's beliefs or behaviors. In fact, neuroscience research suggests that people act their way into believing rather than thinking their way into acting. Changes to key behaviors - changes that are tangible, actionable, repeatable, observable, and measurable - are thus a good place to start. Some good examples of behavior change, which we've observed at a number of companies, relate to empowerment (reducing the number of approvals needed for decisions), collaboration (setting up easy ways to convene joint projects), and interpersonal relations (devising mutually respectful practices for raising contentious issues or grievances).

Neuroscience research suggests that people act their way into believing rather than thinking their way into acting.

A telecommunications company was seeking to improve its customer service. Rather than trying to influence mind-sets by, for example, posting signs urging employees to be polite to disgruntled customers, or having employees undergo empathy training, the company focused on what psychologists call a "precursor behavior" - a seemingly innocuous behavior that reliably precedes the occurrence of problem behavior. Leaders had noticed that poor teaming led to poor customer service, so the company rolled out a plan to encourage better and more effective teaming within call centers. To accomplish this, they set up regular design sessions for improving practices. When employees felt they were part of a happy team, and sensed a greater level of support from colleagues, they began treating their customers better.

In another example, a resources company in the Middle East was seeking to make its workplace safer. Rather than erect placards threatening workers with consequences, the company focused on a relatively basic precursor behavior: housekeeping. It organized a litter drive. Picking up trash as a team helped employees take greater pride in the workplace, which engendered a greater sense of care for fellow employees and made them more likely to speak up when they noticed an unsafe situation. Changed behavior, changed mind-set.

3. Focus on a critical few behaviors. Conventional wisdom advocates a comprehensive approach - everybody should change everything that's not perfect! But companies must be rigorously selective when it comes to picking behaviors. The key is to focus on what we call "the critical few," a small number of important behaviors that would have great impact if put into practice by a significant number of people. Discern a few things people do throughout the company that positively affect business performance - for example, ways of starting meetings or talking with customers. Make sure those are aligned with the company's overall strategy. Also check that people feel good about doing these things, so that you tap into emotional commitment. Then codify them: Translate those critical behaviors into simple, practical steps that people can take every day. Next, select groups of employees who are primed for these few behaviors, those who will respond strongly to the new behaviors and who are likely to implement and spread them.

At an Asian banking company, rapid inorganic growth had led to diverse ways of working across different units and geographies. To focus on improving teaming, customer outcomes, and the ability to realize synergies, the CEO and leadership embarked on a culture-led evolution program. They targeted just three critical behaviors: taking extra steps to delight customers, valuing performance over seniority, and backing up and supporting one another. They then converted these three general behaviors into specifics for each part of the company. Delighting customers, for instance, was translated into frontline staff collaborating with other colleagues to solve client problems and prioritizing the implementation of process improvements that affected customer outcomes. For all three behaviors, leadership recognized and celebrated examples in which people made an extraordinary effort. Senior leaders acted as role models, explicitly modeling these three new behaviors. The company also identified influential frontline, client-facing employees who could demonstrate these new behaviors in action.

4. Deploy your authentic informal leaders. Authority, which is conferred by a formal position, should not be confused with leadership. Leadership is a natural attribute, exercised and displayed informally without regard to title or position in the organizational chart. Because authentic informal leaders, who are found in every organization, are often not recognized as such, they are frequently overlooked and underused when it comes to driving culture. It is possible to identify such leaders through interviews, surveys, and tools such as organizational network analysis, which allow companies to construct maps of complex internal social relations by analyzing email statistics and meeting records. Once identified, these leaders can become powerful allies who can influence behavior through "showing by doing." In fact, when companies map out their organizations, they can identify leaders who exhibit different core leadership strengths (see "Four Types of Authentic Informal Leaders").

Four Types of Authentic Informal Leaders

Every organization has people who influence and energize others without relying on their title or formal position in the hierarchy to do so. We call them "authentic informal leaders." They are a powerful resource in spreading a critical few behaviors from the bottom up. Among the many types of informal leaders present in organizations, the following are seen most frequently.

Pride builders are master motivators of other people, and catalysts for improvement around them. Often found in the role of line manager, they understand the motivations of those with whom they work. They know how to foster a sense of excellence among others. They can be found at every level of a hierarchy; some of the most effective pride builders are close to the front line, where they can interact directly with customers as well as employees. Pride builders often have powerful insights about the culture and about what behaviors are likely to lead to improvement.

Exemplars are role models. They bring vital behaviors or skills to life, and others pay attention to them. They are well respected and are effective peer influencers in the middle and senior management cohorts.

Networkers are hubs of personal communication within the organization. They know many people, and communicate freely and openly with them. They serve as links among people who might not otherwise share information or ideas. If you want to see an idea travel virally through an enterprise, enlist your networkers.

Early adopters enthusiastically latch onto and experiment with new technologies, processes, and ways of working. Involve them in your performance pilots, or whenever you are trying to demonstrate impact quickly.

At one major oil company, an informal leader named Osama became known as the "turbo-collaborator." His role gave him very little formal influence. But when he began working at the refinery, he walked the plant with the engineers, maintenance technicians, and operators, and took copious notes. As a result, he knew everyone and developed relationships across disciplines. Whenever somebody wanted to know how the place really worked, they would speak to Osama - who would either have the answer in his notebook or know precisely the right person to ask. When the company formed a buddy program between operations and maintenance aimed at using greater collaboration to improve plant reliability, it knew it needed Osama at the heart of it. He connected people, defined templates to encourage collaboration, and captured success stories. Identifying, engaging, and nurturing such informal leaders allows companies to harness their talents and further the company's transformation efforts.

5. Don't let your formal leaders off the hook. Most organizations tend to shunt culture into the silo of human resources professionals. But leaders in all parts of the company are critical in safeguarding and championing desired behaviors, energizing personal feelings, and reinforcing cultural alignment. The signaling of emotional commitment sets the tone for others to follow. If staff members see a disconnect between the culture an organization promulgates and the one its formal leadership follows, they'll disengage quickly from the advertised culture and simply mimic their seniors' behavior. The people at the top have to demonstrate the change they want to see. Here, too, the critical few come into play. A handful of the right kind of leaders have to be on board to start the process.

When Jim Rogers was CEO of GE Motors in Fort Wayne, Ind., he became frustrated because his senior leadership group of more than 15 leaders seldom functioned together as a "real team." As described by Jon Katzenbach and Douglas K. Smith in The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High-Performance Organization (Harvard Business School Press, 1993), a real team is one with a high level of emotional commitment; the leadership role shifts easily among the members depending on their skills and experience and the challenges of the moment, rather than on any hierarchical positions. Team members hold one another accountable for the quality of their collective work. Interestingly, at GE Motors the senior leadership group members often demonstrated real team capabilities in running their individual business units and functions. So Rogers decided to find ways to break them into subteams of three or four members to address specific cross-organizational issues facing the larger group. Over time, he mixed the subgroupings to match emerging issues. By working in different subgroup settings, the executives developed camaraderie, which in turn improved the effectiveness of the group as a whole.

6. Link behaviors to business objectives. When people talk about feelings, motivations, and values - all of which are vital elements of strong cultures - the conversation can often veer into abstractions. It may then range far afield of what it takes to succeed in the market. Too many employees walk away from culture-focused town halls or values discussions wondering how the advice on how to be a better person actually translates into the work they do. To avoid this disconnect, offer tangible, well-defined examples of how cultural interventions lead to improved performance and financial outcomes. Select behaviors that are aimed specifically at improving business performance and can be measured over time.

Related Stories

by Jon Katzenbach , DeAnne Aguirre

by Jon Katzenbach , Gretchen Anderson , Art Kleiner

An oil company's drive to reduce maintenance costs at an industrial installation highlights the importance of such an approach. The critical few behaviors included empowerment and good decision making. One of the company's exemplars (employees who lead by example) decided it would be a smart move to make costs visible to workers. So he placed price tags on various pieces of machinery. These cues inspired behavioral changes related to decisions about whether to repair or replace equipment. Workers and managers began to recommend fixing expensive equipment rather than replacing it. The company celebrated and publicized cost savings identified by employees. The behaviors led to a change in focus and mind-set. When an employee noticed that fans were cooling the machinery during the winter, he felt empowered to call it out, and ask whether it was necessary to do so. It turned out that it wasn't - and the company saved US$750,000 annually in power costs as a result.

7. Demonstrate impact quickly. We live in an age of notoriously short attention spans. That applies as much to organizational culture as it does to people's media consumption habits. When people hear about new high-profile initiatives and efforts, and then don't see any activity related to them for several months, they'll disengage and grow cynical. That's why it is extremely important to showcase the impact of cultural efforts on business results as quickly as possible. One effective method of doing so is to stage performance pilots - that is, high-profile demonstration projects. Pilots are relatively low-risk efforts that introduce specific behaviors that can then be evaluated and assessed. They often rely on a dashboard that defines desired impacts, the tactics used, and the specific metrics to be employed.

When Bell Canada first explored using new behaviors at the front line to improve its customer service and profitability, there were many more skeptics than believers within the leadership ranks. There simply wasn't any numerical proof that the tactics would work. So CEO Michael Sabia decided to set up a pilot test in a sales unit near Toronto. The sponsors of the test blocked out a tight time frame of eight months, and developed realistic ways of measuring behavior change, customer reactions, and actual sales and margin performance. Armed with positive results in these areas - a 29 percent increase in customer satisfaction in retail stores, a 31 percent increase in revenue per call at call centers - the company went on to accelerate the expansion of these efforts across the front line in different geographies, functions, and businesses.

8. Use cross-organizational methods to go viral. Ideas can spread virally across organizational departments and functions, as well as from the top down and from the bottom up. One powerful way to spread ideas is through social media: blogs, Facebook or LinkedIn posts, and tweets - not from senior management, but from some of the authentic informal leaders mentioned in Principle 4.

By now it is well established that social media can be more effective at spreading information, news, and music than traditional modes of distribution. The same holds with critical behaviors. People are often more receptive to changes in "the way we do things around here" when those changes are recommended or shared by friends, colleagues, and other associates. This kind of credible social proof is more compelling than similar testimonials from someone whose job it is to sell something.

Just as there is an art to making content go viral, there's a craft to making behavior go viral. For example, in a model that we have tested successfully in several situations, a company starts with a few carefully chosen groups of 12 to 15 informal leaders in three or four different parts of the business. After several weeks, an additional 10 to 15 groups of informal leaders are set up in every business unit. After about three months, the existing groups are encouraged to expand and bring in new people. After another three to six months have passed, the groups become more autonomous, allowed to control their own expansion. Meanwhile, the company facilitates connections among groups to share learning and insights. As behavior spreads, company leaders see increased performance as well as peer and leadership recognition.

9. Align programmatic efforts with behaviors. We've emphasized the role that informal leaders can play in helping ideas go viral. But it's also important to match the new cultural direction with existing ways of doing business. Informal mechanisms and cultural interventions must complement and integrate with the more common formal organization components, not work at cross-purposes. By providing the structure in which people work - through disciplines such as organization design, analytics, human resources, and lean process improvement - the formal organization provides a rational motivation for employee actions, while the informal organization enables the emotional commitment that characterizes peak performance.

The U.S. Marine Corps provides a classic example of integrating formal and informal leadership efforts. The "rule of three" dictates how the Marines design their organizations and projects and how they execute in a hierarchy. (Three squads form into one of three divisions, which form one of three battalions.) The formal leaders of those units are expected to know the intent of the officer two levels above them - and to call out any order or situation they perceive to be incoherent or in conflict with that intent. But there are also informal leaders: Each of the four members of a frontline rifle team is prepared (and expected) to take the lead whenever the formal leader is disabled or loses the high-ground position. This means that the informal leaders also need to know the intent of that officer two levels above. Integrating informal norms with the formal structures helps enable the timely battlefield adjustments that have served the Marine Corps well for more than 200 years.

10. Actively manage your cultural situation over time. Companies that have had great success working with culture - we call them "culture superstars" - actively monitor, manage, care for, and update their cultural forces. Why? As we noted at the outset, when aligned with strategic and operating priorities, culture can provide hidden sources of energy and motivation that can accelerate changes faster than formal processes and programs. Even if you have a highly effective culture today, it may not be good enough for tomorrow.

Southwest Airlines stands as an example of a battle-tested company in which culture has been managed over time. Famous for its long-term success in an industry where even the largest players routinely fail, Southwest for 40 years has been energized by a deep sense of pride among all employees. Southwest has found that constructing an environment that puts its employees first - above customers and owners - fosters a sense of emotional commitment and pride that delivers excellent customer service. But at Southwest, the work on culture is never completed. Just as the airline's strategy, tactics, and technologies have evolved to cope with a changing external environment, specific HR practices, including informal behaviors, have shifted over time.

Living in Your Culture

Although challenging, multidimensional, and often difficult to deal with, a company's cultural situation constitutes a powerful set of emotional resources. As is the case with other resources - human, technological, financial - it is incumbent upon leaders to strive to get the most value out of it.

To a degree, culture can be compared to natural forces such as winds and tides. These elements are there in the background, sometimes unnoticed, sometimes obvious. Endowed with immense power, they can waylay plans and inhibit progress. They can't really be tamed or fundamentally altered. But if you respect them and understand how to make the most of them, if you work with them and tap into their hidden power, they can become a source of energy and provide powerful assistance.

The best way to start is to ask yourself a series of questions. What are the most important emotional forces that determine what your people do? What few behavior changes would matter most in meeting strategic and operational imperatives? Who are the authentic informal leaders you can enlist? And what can you and your fellow senior leaders do differently to signal and reinforce those critical behaviors?

Of course, you shouldn't plan for dramatic results overnight. Expect an evolution, not a revolution. One of the challenges of working with culture is that, as we've noted, it changes gradually - often too slowly for leaders facing fast-moving competitors. That's the bad news. The good news? If you approach culture with respect and intelligence, as a milieu in which you and your enterprise live, you can use it to accelerate your competitive momentum. There's no better time than the present to start.

Reprint No. 16105

Author Profiles:

Jon Katzenbach is an acclaimed advisor to executives for Strategy&, PwC's strategy consulting group. He is a managing director with PwC US, based in New York, and founder of the Katzenbach Center, Strategy&'s global institute on organizational culture and leadership. He is a best-selling author on organizational culture, leadership, and teaming; his books include The Wisdom of Teams (with Douglas K. Smith; Harvard Business School Press, 1993) and Leading Outside the Lines (with Zia Khan; Jossey-Bass, 2010).

Carolin Oelschlegel is a director of the Katzenbach Center for Strategy&. She leads the global operations of the center and advises clients around the world on culture and leadership topics. Based in San Francisco, she is a director with PwC US.

James Thomas is a thought leader in organizational culture with Strategy&. He is the Middle East lead of the Katzenbach Center and an expert in culture and organizational topics. Based in Dubai, he is a partner with PwC Middle East.

Also contributing to this article were Strategy& specialists Varya Davidson (partner with PwC Australia), Kenji Mitsui (partner with PwC Japan), Henning Hagen and Rutger von Post (principals with PwC US), and Shona Especkerman (senior manager with PwC Malaysia).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Jon Katzenbach, Carolin Oelschlegel, and James Thomas

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How often have you heard somebody - a new CEO, a journalist, a management consultant, a leadership guru, a fellow employee - talk about the urgent need to change the culture? They want to make it world-class. To dispense with all the nonsense and negativity that annoys employees and stops good intentions from growing into progress.

# data[].attributes.body
Performance: 360 Degree: Manager Effectiveness Evaluation

# data[].attributes.body
The 6 Questions that Ensure the Effectiveness of Google Management

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
How do you measure your managers? How do you know they're doing a good job?

If you're like most companies, you do the occasional 360 feedback, watch team retention numbers, and hope for the best. Unfortunately, much of that can end up being too little, too late.

Employees leave managers not companies. And they have a habit of leaving in waves. By the time that happens, you've lost hundreds of thousands of dollars (or more) in lost productivity and re-hiring costs. And by then, you probably will have to consider firing the manager who now has a stained reputation.

There has to be a better way, right? A way to catch these problems before they cause permanent, and costly, damage.

Thanks to Google, there is a better way.
[Ed note: Want to measure how you or your managers are doing like this? Lighthouse has built a product for you to easily do it, too. Learn more about benchmarking yourself or your company's managers by clicking here]
Google has studied management in ways no company has before. Their scale combined with their engineering-driven culture has led to rigorous, research-grade study of Google management. They have an entire team devoted to these kinds of questions called, People Analytics.

This led to the famous experiment and research, codenamed Project Oxygen, which proved that, yes, managers are important and necessary. Luckily, once Google proved to themselves empirically that managers mattered, they focused on what makes a great manager, and how to measure that so it can be improved across the company on an ongoing basis.

The Google Approach

In Laszlo Bock's recent NY Times best-selling book, "Work Rules: Insights from Inside Google," he reveals many of the secrets to Google's success with their people, culture, and managers. He shares their scientific methodologies to their internal studies and many of the great findings they uncovered. He's even pretty honest about some of their failures.

One such discovery was the set of questions they use for team members to evaluate their managers. This helps Google reward their best managers, and help improve their worst ones.

Unlike their million dollar stock grants that only mega companies like Google can offer, this is something every company can use to help improve their managers.

Let's take a look at what those questions are, and where evidence beyond Google supports their value.

Google Management's UFS (Upward Feedback Survey)

Below are the questions Google uses to measure their managers as described in Bock's book. (Specifically page 197 in Chapter 8, for those of you who want to read more for yourself.)

A few caveats: The details of how Google runs these surveys is important, so here's a few notes from the book:

1. All questions are scored on a scale of 1 to 5.
Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, and Strongly Disagree

2. They score the managers based on the percentage of scores that are favorable.
Strongly Agrees and Agrees are considered favorable

3. Managers are compared to their previous scores and the average Google manager score that time.
So they can see if they're getting better or worse and how they compare to others

4. The surveys are 100% anonymous and do *not* impact performance management evaluations
This avoids managers gaming the surveys and pressuring team members to not answer honestly

5. Many managers go over their results with their team
It starts a dialogue about things that the manager can specifically change, flipping the usual manager-employee relationship

Now that we know the questions, let's look at why they work.

The Table Stakes

Three of the questions aren't all that surprising. They're the table stakes that any company is likely to measure their managers on: competence and execution of tasks.

My manager keeps the team focused on our priority results/deliverables.

My manager communicates clear goals for our team.

My manager has the technical expertise (e.g. coding in Tech, accounting in Finance) required to effectively manage me.

Most companies can quickly identify a manager lacking significantly in any of those 3 areas. And in most companies, that's usually the only thing they measure. That's why the other six are the most important and worth further examination.

The 6 Surprising Questions that Ensure Effective Management at Google

With the obvious questions out of the way, let's look at each of the other ones in more detail by exploring what other supporting information is out there beyond Google.

1) My manager gives me actionable feedback that helps me improve my performance

Delivered well, feedback can help you become much better at the work you do, which will help you advance in your career. The problem is, most people don't get enough of it. And managers are generally the person who can best provide it, so when you're not getting enough, it's largely their fault.

While the data Google used to create their survey question is now years old, we know they were ahead of the curve. Millennials are a generation that craves more frequent feedback than any generation before, as this study from SAS revealed earlier this year:

With Millennials now the largest demographic in the workforce, managers must invest more in providing feedback. The best way to ensure that happens across your company is to make it a part of how you measure your managers.

2) My manager does not "micromanage" (i.e., get involved in details that should be handled at other levels).

No one likes to be micromanaged, but it's easy to fall into the trap. It's one of the fastest ways to frustrate someone on the job and stymie their creativity.

Managers don't have all the answers. Their teams bring unique perspectives and are doing the actual work, which makes them more likely to create the best solutions. This shouldn't be surprising, but it's often overlooked.

That's why in Dan Pink's awesome TED talk on The Puzzle of Motivation the first of his 3 keys is: Autonomy. (And the others, Mastery and Purpose, translate well to questions about Goals and Communication below)

If you trust your people to do great work and find the best solutions, they may just surprise you.

You don't even need to have high tech workers to do it, either. Toyota's Total Production System is built on the premise that anyone on the assembly line can and should stop the system if there's a problem. They also train managers to solicit feedback and ideas for improvements from each team member. This doesn't happen unless you value autonomy and avoid micromanagement.

3) My manager shows consideration for me as a person.

The stereotype of a bad manager is a self-absorbed leader that doesn't care for anyone else (see Dilbert, The Office, or Office Space). This is not the kind of person people are inspired to work hard for.

Instead, the kinds of managers that have the most effective teams, start out by building a foundation of rapport and trust with their teams. Just as Google found it a key to their best managers, external data backs this up. In Gallup's recent State of the American Manager report, they found that this kind of appreciation for your people was a huge driver of engagement:

Work is such a large part of your life. It's too short to work for people that don't care for you as a person. Checking whether people perceive their manager cares about them is a good way to demonstrate it's an important trait for managers to exemplify at your company.

4) My manager regularly shares relevant information from his/her manager and senior leadership.

Especially as your company grows, it can be easy for people to feel out of the loop and disconnected. Managers are often in more meetings and have access to more information that helps them understand what's going on and the impact of their work. Since their team isn't in all of those meetings, it's important for that information to be communicated to them.

Leaders have to be deliberate about this because otherwise there are dire consequences as Ben Horowitz, former CEO of Opsware and VC at A16Z, has written:

"Perhaps the CEO's most important operational responsibility is designing and implementing the communication architecture for her company. The architecture might include the organizational design, meetings, processes, email, yammer and even one-on-one meetings with managers and employees. Absent a well-designed communication architecture, information and ideas will stagnate and your company will degenerate into a bad place to work."

A CEO can't talk with everyone all the time, so they need the help of their managers. This means your managers must become skilled at helping spread messages, often repeating themselves more than they feel necessary. And the only way to be sure this is happening sufficiently is to ask what employees think with a question like this.

5) My manager has had a meaningful discussion with me about my career development in the past six months.

Here's a common story I have heard from a number of friends:

Joe joins a fast-growing, exciting company that brings new challenges and a better job title than he had before. He starts contributing right away.
About 6-9 months in, he has his first performance review and one of the questions he's asked is, "What are your career goals?" "Finally! I can tell them about my goals," he thinks to himself. Joe proceeds to excitedly share his biggest goal with his manager who eagerly takes notes and enters it into the HR review system. And then nothing happens. A year later, his next review comes around and he's asked again about his goals. Discouraged by the lack of progress, he says it's the same as last year. Happy to get the review done faster, his manager copies his notes from the previous year. Realizing he's not growing in his role, Joe starts interviewing for a new job that will provide the next growth opportunity for him. Meanwhile, HR can't figure out why Joe stayed for less than 2 years.

Over and over, I've heard from companies with highly rated cultures that they still lose their employees regularly. The common pattern? A lack of career progress has people looking elsewhere.

Are your people growing?

If they're not, there's a great risk that they will become bored, disengage and start looking for new jobs to find growth opportunities.

Once again, Google was ahead of the curve realizing the value of talking about goals with your people. As Mary Meeker's slides on the Internet Trends this year showed, the top benefit Millennials want at work is "Training and Development."

If you want to retain your people, you have to help them grow. It makes every person on your team more valuable to your company and less likely to look for work elsewhere. A person's manager is best person to help them make progress on reaching their goals, so it's important to ensure these conversations are happening.
Growth discussions are about making progress. Make a plan and discuss it in your 1 on 1s. Lighthouse can help you easily do this for everyone on your team. You can sign up for a free trial of Lighthouse here.
6) I would recommend my manager to other Googlers.

The Net Promoter Score started as a survey question for marketers ( "How likely are you to recommend Product X to a friend or colleague?"), and has become a question used for other great purposes as well. Many companies have started asking an Employee Promoter Score question to see how likely people would recommend working at the company. Google has taken this one step further to zoom in on each manager.

Given that people quit managers, not companies, this makes a lot of sense. Gallup's State of the American Manager report revealed that " 50% of Americans have left a job to "get away from their manager at some point in their career," and that a manager's engagement directly impacts their team's engagement:

-

It's amazing to read about the effort and scientific rigor that Google put into discovering what made someone a great manager and how that impacted their teams. We can all benefit from what Google has learned. It's also fascinating and encouraging to see that their research aligns well with many other sources of research on managers and their impact.

While not everything Google's management does can be brought to your company, these questions are well worth trying with your employees. If you're interested in learning more about Google's approaches to leadership, management, and culture, I recommend you check out Laszlo Bock's book here.

Want to easily run a survey like this of your team?

Then sign up for Manager Score. Lighthouse has purpose built Manager Score to measure how managers are doing on these same key areas like Google identified, and even gives you advice on how to improve in areas of weakness. Get your Manager Score now here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Google Management Measures its Effectiveness

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How do you measure your managers? How do you know they're doing a good job? If you're like most companies, you do the occasional 360 feedback, watch team retention numbers, and hope for the best. Unfortunately, much of that can end up being too little, too late. Employees leave managers not companies.

# data[].attributes.body
Good questions to use when doing an employee survey.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Employee engagement is suffering. According to Gallup's 2017 State of the American Workplace Report, only 33% of U.S. workers are engaged with their jobs. Previously, the management consulting company found that a mere 13% of employees are engaged across the globe. Considering the fact that, as Dale Carnegie points out, companies with engaged employees outperform those without them by up to 202%, it comes as no surprise that engagement is routinely listed as a top concern for many organizations.

One of the easiest ways to increase employee engagement is by regularly soliciting feedback from your team in order to know how they're feeling at any given point in time. By using pulse surveys on a weekly or biweekly basis to ask workers a few questions while giving them the opportunity to respond to them anonymously, you can increase the chances the feedback you receive is honest, helpful, and productive.

To get the most out of pulse surveys, you can't expect to ask any old question whenever you feel like it. Instead, you need to ask the right ones at the right frequency to stay on top of employee sentiment.

With the right strategy in place, pulse surveys will increase employee engagement - making your company that much stronger. With that in mind, here are 20 employee engagement survey questions you need to ask your team every at recurring intervals:

01. On a scale of 1 to 10, how happy are you at work?

If you want to get straight to the point, this question is undoubtedly the most direct in relation to workplace satisfaction. Find out where your company's morale falls on the 10-point scale.

How likely an employee would refer someone is a reflection on how satisfied this person is at their job. If they're unhappy with their job, you can bet they don't have much good to say to their friends about the company.

Another poll by Gallup found that employees who get the opportunity to continually develop are twice as likely to say they will spend their career with their company. Find out if your workers have a clear understanding of what lies ahead of them. If their answers are negative, you'll need to start offering developmental opportunities to prevent people from quitting in rapid succession.

Employees need to balance work and their personal life in order to be productive and engaged. If employees are feeling lopsided, then that's a red flag that signals burnout is right around the corner.

Bad communication, lack of transparency, feeling unvalued - these can all be uncovered by asking this question. Find out whether your employees feel like they're there to stay or if there are underlying issues that are driving them to look elsewhere for work.
06. Do you feel valued at work?
Our research has revealed that only 21% of employees feel strongly valued at work. Use this question to gauge how valued workers in your organization are feeling.

Find out how the leadership team is doing with recognizing their employees. If the majority of workers have said they've gone more than two weeks without recognition, there's a good chance morale is dropping. And that can lead to disengagement, loss of productivity, and attrition.

Feeling valued at work is a huge motivator. This question will help uncover if leaders (or peers) have missed the mark when it comes to recognition. If employees don't feel their hard work is properly recognized, you can work together to find a solution to this problem.

Employees want to work at a place that will nurture their desire for growth. The more opportunities for growth your organization can offer, the longer employees will stick around.

This is a tricky question - the happier an employee is at their current job, the more likely they would be to reapply to that very same position. So if an employee rates on the lower end of the spectrum then they're most likely unhappy and won't be at the job for long.

A question like this is pretty self-explanatory. However, it can say a lot about your retention rate. If a majority of your employees are saying they don't see themselves working here in one year, you've got some changes to make.

No one wants to work at a place that ignores their employees. When leaders don't take feedback or suggestions seriously, it shows that they're not committed to making improvements. And frankly, it makes employees feel unvalued.

Our previous research found that transparency is the number one factor that contributes to workplace happiness. In our 2017 Employee Engagement Report, however, we found that only 25% of workers believe management is very transparent - despite that nearly twice as many managers consider themselvestransparent.

Find out how well your leaders are doing with providing information to their employees.

Our previous research has also uncovered the fact that only 42% of employees know their organization's vision, mission, and cultural values. A low number is unsettling because it's saying that employees are doing their work without any real understanding of how they're contributing to the company or that everyone isn't working on the same page.

Fun, suppressive, supportive - find out what your employees think about your culture. Use the results to find ways to strengthen and improve your culture to suit your employees' needs.

A workplace should never be a hostile environment. Nor should it be one that's suppressive. Employees should feel comfortable providing feedback to their supervisors so that they can continue to offer suggestions for improvements.

You want to build a culture where people respect one another - not one where heads clash. Dig under the surface to find out how employees truly feel about each other. If they're not supporting one another, it's time to start doing team-building activities.

Do your employees feel like the organization's values are just meaningless words on the walls? Or maybe they believe leaders aren't living out the values. Either way, an organization's values are there are guidelines for behaviors and decisions.

Are the top leaders in your organization fostering a positive work environment or a negative one? With this survey question, you'll be able to go behind the scenes and find out how well leaders are upholding the organization's culture.

Employees spend so many hours at work. Find out if your employees think your organization's culture is worth waking up every day for.

Anonymous employee surveys are an important tool for fighting disengagement and attrition. But you'll need to act on this feedback by sharing it with your employees and working with them to find solutions to improve the workplace in order to truly foster an engaging environment.

Got a Favorite Question?

The beauty of employee feedback surveys is that there are many ways to ask each question. What unique or creative questions have you used in your employee surveys? Share them with us in the comments section below!

Editor's Note: This post was originally published in June 2015 and has been updated for freshness, accuracy, and comprehensiveness.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
20 Employee Engagement Survey Questions You Need to Ask

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Employee engagement is suffering. According to Gallup's 2017 State of the American Workplace Report, only 33% of U.S. workers are engaged with their jobs. Previously, the management consulting company found that a mere 13% of employees are engaged across the globe.

# data[].attributes.body
Every 6 months, Google has their employees answer 13 questions about their manager and share results with management for feedback and improvement.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
If you internalize any management advice, may it be this: Ask for and give regular feedback.

Countless studies have proven that frequent, specific feedback (be it critique or constructive praise) increases employee satisfaction, engagement, and performance, while fostering a culture of psychological safety organization-wide.

However, more often than not, workplace feedback only comes from the top-down. This can breed resentment and frustration among underlings, while handicapping leaders from learning invaluable development lessons themselves.

To ensure managers are learning from their teams, Google asks employees to fill out a 13-question manager feedback survey (on a Google form, naturally) on a semi-annual basis. The responses are recorded confidentially, and managers receive a report of anonymized, aggregated feedback, plus verbatim answers to two open-ended questions at the end of the form.

"The feedback a manager gets through this survey is purely developmental," Google says. "It isn't directly considered in performance or compensation reviews, in the hope that Googlers will be honest and constructive with their feedback."

The first 11 questions ask employees to rate whether they agree or disagree with statements about their manager using a five-point Likert scale (from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree"). Google says that each statement is based on one of the eight behaviors of successful managers at their company:

1. My manager gives me actionable feedback that helps me improve my performance.

2. My manager does not "micromanage" (i.e., get involved in details that should be handled at other levels).

3. My manager shows consideration for me as a person.

4. The actions of my manager show that he/she values the perspective I bring to the team, even if it is different from his/her own.

5. My manager keeps the team focused on our priority results/deliverables.

6. My manager regularly shares relevant information from his/her manager and senior leaders.

7. My manager has had a meaningful discussion with me about career development in the past six months.

8. My manager communicates clear goals for our team.

9. My manager has the technical expertise (e.g., coding in Tech, selling in Global Business, accounting in Finance) required to effectively manage me.

10. I would recommend my manager to other Googlers.

11. I am satisfied with my manager's overall performance as a manager.

The final two questions are open-ended:

1. What would you recommend your manager keep doing?

2. What would you have your manager change?

Google recently made the feedback survey public. It shared the complete form, along a number of other tools used to train and support managers, on its re:Work blog.

Most Popular

Read full story

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The 13 questions Google asks about its managers when it gathers employee feedback

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If you internalize any management advice, may it be this: Ask for and give regular feedback. Countless studies have proven that frequent, specific feedback (be it critique or constructive praise) increases employee satisfaction, engagement, and performance, while fostering a culture of psychological safety organization-wide. However, more often than not, workplace feedback only comes from the...

# data[].attributes.body
The "true" cost of executive searchers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
To determine executive search pricing, the first question a company needs to answer is whether it wants to use a search firm or manage the search engagement in-house. There are firms that offer flexible unbundled search and recruiting research services to support internal executive search and recruiting efforts, a trend that has grown in popularity in recent years. Employers seeking full-service executive search services usually turn to a search firm.
Traditional Search Firm Models
For companies that want to go "out to search" there are two traditional search firm models: retained search firms and contingency firms.

1. Retained: Retained executive search firms are paid a retainer to do the work of executive search. The fee is not contingent upon making an actual placement. Retained firms tend to concentrate on recruiting senior executives who are passive candidates - those who are not actively looking for the next job.

2. Contingency: Contingency search firms are only paid when they make a placement. They tend to concentrate on recruiting candidates that are actively looking for their next jobs. While there is some cross over - mainly at the VP and Director levels - retained firms focus on executive searches, and contingency firms focus on non-executive search.

Traditional Executive Search Prices

The traditional search firm prices do not give clients an opportunity to save. Employers pay a full fee regardless as to whether the search takes a week, a month, or half a year. That's because the pricing is not based on effort, the time spent searching, or the difficulty of a particular engagement. Rather, it is based on a percentage of annual compensation.

Percentage-Based Pricing

When executive search fees are based on candidate compensation, the more a candidate is paid, the more a search firm makes. Some contend that is a conflict of interest. Percentage-based executive search pricing provides financial incentive for search firms to negotiate higher salaries of the candidates they place, which is not in the best interest of the client.

Retained search: 30-33% of total first year cash compensation of the candidate placed, plus expenses

Contingency Search: 20-25% of first year base salary of the candidate placed

Flat Fee Pricing

A small percentage of search firms charge a flat fee, including Egon Zehnder, one of the leading retained firms in the world. (Full disclosure: Intellerati is the research division of The Good Search, which also offers retained services by flat fee.) Egon Zehnder maintains the pricing model enables the firm to be "completely unbiased" and to "facilitate hiring negotiations with no conflict of interest. Most fixed fees are similar in total amount to the percentage based fees.

While there will always be firms that charge less, and there were always be search engagements that enable a firm to charge more, most executive search fees fall within a basic range, regardless as to how the firm does the math.

Average Full-Service Executive Search Prices

Executive Search Pricing:In-House Services

At large corporations, the do-it-yourself executive search model has grown in popularity. Employers using internal executive recruiters and corporate executive search teams to conduct executive search in-house. In doing so, they frequently turn to executive search research firms and vendors offering unbundled executive search services to augment their own efforts. Sometimes, all they want is a list of potential candidates for their own executive recruiters to call. Sometimes, they want interested, qualified candidates that they'll usher through the interview process through to hire. Sometimes, they want a firm that flexes to serve as an extension of their own team.

Executive Search Research and Unbundled Services

Executive Search Research firms and search firms offering unbundled services typically charge by the hour, by the project/search, or by monthly retainer. Research firms offering name generation services also charge by-the-name. Name-gen research produces lists of target candidate names. Typically, the lists are comprised of information gathered from the Internet and from calling into companies.

The wide range in pricing depends on the services offerred and on domain expertise, access to top talent, consultative abilities, and executive presence of the firm. The budget firms may produce candidates who are simply "willing to take a call", without qualifying, interviewing and vetting the candidate with a more thorough assessment. They typically do not position offers, assist in negotiations, and close the candidate.

Average By-the-Name Prices:

Average By-the-Hour Prices:

Average By-The-Month Prices

Increasingly, in-house recruiting teams are turning firms that offer the expertise of retained search firms services, but a much more flexible model. designed for in-house search teams. Frequently, theses firms work by monthly retainer as a natural extension the in-house executive recruiting team. Unlike the retained model, the monthly retainer gives companies a significant opportunity to save.

In most cases, firms offering unbundled services are not responsible for the hire. Research firms do make it a practice to guarantee the quality of their research.

Risks to Consider

By-the-Name Risks

The risk of By-the-Name pricing is paying for names you don't need. Another weakness is it is a quantitative approach. A name doesn't tell your who is good. Moreover, a name does not a candidate make. Someone still needs to do the work of recruiting, converting the name into a viable candidate.

By-the-Hour Risks

The risk of By-the-Hour pricing is that it gives the illusion of comparing apples-to-apples when that is rarely the case. A company with a lower hourly rate may be a terrific bargain or it might cost you more per engagement - either in the total fee for the engagement or in a botched search or missed opportunity. Another risk of By-The-Hour pricing is that the meter is always running. The risk can be mitigated if it is possible to set a flat project fee, so you know what the work will cost. The challenge of setting a project fee is that research firms are not Masters of the Universe that control outcome.

By-the-Month Risks

The risk of By-the-Month pricing is that a company could end up paying more for an executive search if, for example, a search is put on hold for a time or if hiring executives are on vacation and available for interviews. However, that risk is mitigated when companies have the option of switching the firm to another search. Also, the monthly model works better when a company can commit to a four or more searches a year. Doing so enables the firm to assign a specific team member to serve the client for concierge-quality service.

The True Cost of Executive Search

Last, price is not the same as the total cost of a search, a figure that is the one that I've found is the more accurate measure. It is a figure that also takes other factors into account, such as the cost of a position languishing unfilled, or of a cheaper, but ultimately bad hire. There is a reason that the most powerful and successful employers in the world continue to invest in quality executive search, whether through their own teams or in league with a trusted executive search partner. I'll address that topic in another post.

Questions for the reader:

What do you pay for executive search? If you have paid different fees, what have you paid and what was the outcome? We welcome your thoughts and comments.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Executive Search Prices: What Will My Search Cost? | Intellerati

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
To determine executive search pricing, the first question a company needs to answer is whether it wants to use a search firm or manage the search engagement in-house. There are firms that offer flexible unbundled search and recruiting research services to support internal executive search and recruiting efforts, a trend that has grown in popularity in recent years.

# data[].attributes.body
“People join companies, but leave managers." Short article, but good.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Share this post:

The jury's out on the rhetoric that "People join companies, but leave managers," because research shows leadership, future vision, recognition and other organizational factors are more critical determining factors of employee engagement and turnover intentions1.

However, most people would still agree that the skills and behaviors of your manager impact your day-to-day impressions of work. For example, recent Harvard Business Review research2 reveals that "Organizations don't have an absolute monopoly on employee motivation or on fulfilling people's emotional drives. Employees' perceptions of their immediate managers matter just as much."

Given this impact, it is no surprise that many of our clients seek to measure manager effectiveness in their employee surveys. IBM Smarter Workforce surveys provide two main options for doing so.

First, our standardized Manager Effectiveness Index provides a simple, clear and effective way for managers to understand the overall impact they are having on their teams. Defined as, "The extent to which employees believe their managers are executing on strategy through effective work management, people management, and strong leadership", the index comprises three items that can be compared to a range of our benchmark norms to identify areas of strength or concern:

* My immediate supervisor/manager does a great job at managing the work.
* My immediate supervisor/manager does a great job at people management.
* My immediate supervisor/manager is an outstanding leader.

An alternative option is to create a bespoke index, tailored to measure the key principles or behaviors of effective managers in your organization - for example, fostering creativity or encouraging people to take the initiative or role-modeling the values. Moreover, IBM is likely to have items with benchmark norms for most aspects you might want to measure-but there is no harm designing some customized items (without normal coverage) to support your managers' in taking action on the areas that matter the most within your business.

When you use a low minimum number (N-size) for data reporting (for example: manager report books provided to small teams of five employees), the outcome is a plethora of managers who can share results with their team to have an open and honest conversation about actions the manager can take to improve management effectiveness.

From an organizational perspective, a manager index provides valuable insights about the skills and behaviors of managers throughout your business. Not to be confused with a league table, the output is much better used to identify where perceptions of management practices are strong, and where they are falling short. Learning from your pockets of excellence or targeting follow-up interventions within your lower-scoring areas will help your managers deliver on the crucial tasks of motivating employees and achieving your strategy or vision.

Request the Aberdeen Group Report: Best Practice: Identify High Potentials Before You Lose Them!

Sources:
1. Hayes, B. & Jolton, J. (2014). KXA503: Big Data Busts the Top Three Myths of Employee Engagement and Leadership. IBM Connect, Jan 2014.
2. Nohria, N., Groysberg, B. & Lee, L. (2008). Employee motivation: A powerful new model. Harvard Business Review, 86(7/8), 78.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to Measure Manager Effectiveness in Employee Surveys - IBM Watson Talent

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The jury's out on the rhetoric that "People join companies, but leave managers," because research shows leadership, future vision, recognition and other organizational factors are more critical determining factors of employee engagement and turnover intentions1. However, most people would still agree that the skills and behaviors of your manager impact your day-to-day impressions of work.

# data[].attributes.body
Great article about motivation. Money was 7th on the list for what motivates an employee.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
New Study Answers: What Motivates Employees To 'Go The Extra Mile?'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It's one of the Holy Grails of management: How do I motivate employees to "go the extra mile" and give 110% when studies routinely show the vast majority of them are disengaged? A recent employee survey offered surprising insights.

# data[].attributes.body
Visualizing survey results - what would work best?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
One of the most commonly used types of information in infographic design is survey/poll data. That's because survey data is easily translated into graphs and charts, making it ideal for visual content like infographics. While you will likely want to present your survey results in a comprehensive report or informative article, an infographic is an excellent medium for summarizing your findings in a visual and impactful way. Survey infographics present survey data using a combination of graphs, charts and descriptive text.

How to make a survey infographic

There are several different ways you can approach your survey infographic design and your choice should depend on the story you are trying to tell with your data. To decide which design template to follow, give some thought to the story you want to tell through your infographic.

1. Pose a Question That Your Data Answers

Return to the reason why you conducted your survey in the first place. What is the central question you were looking to answer?

Make your question the title of your infographic and use that to turn your data into charts that answer the question from different angles. A straightforward way to organize your data is to ask a question for each point and then answer it with a graph or chart.

2. Show the Before and After of Your Data

You may want to compare your survey results for one year with results from another year (like in the case of an Annual Report). To do this, you can split your infographic down the middle to compare data points. This design is most effective when the survey follows the same or a very similar format from year to year.

3. Break Your Data It Into Sections

Sectional infographics walk the reader through different informational points or aspects of one topic. This layout if good for connecting points if there isn't a clear narrative storyline to follow. Annual report infographics and educational infographics often use this layout, as they can fit a number of different informational points into one thematic page.

How to visualize survey results

How you choose to visualize survey data depends on the type of question that was asked. There are five types of survey questions that you are most likely to come across.

For a more in-depth guide to choosing charts and graphs for your survey results, read this article on our blog.

1. Multiple Choice Questions

Survey takers are able to select one or more answers from a list of possible answers. It's best to use this type of question when you have a fixed number of answers.

If you offer two binary options (for example, "Yes" or "No"), a standard pie chart is an effective visual to use.

A bar graph is also an effective chart type, as you can place large quantities of data beside each other.

2. Rating Scales

Survey takers are offered a spectrum of possible answers and are asked to select one within that spectrum. This type of question is commonly found on customer satisfaction surveys, in one of two forms: the STAR scale (1-5) and the matrix or "likert" scale ("Strongly Disagree," "Disagree," Neutral, "Agree" and "Strongly Agree" or some similar continuum).

Find the average score and visualize the average using a pie chart.

3. Comment/Essay Box Questions

Open-ended questions requiring survey takers to write out their own answer, rather than selecting a pre-set answer, are a bit trickier to visualize. In order to quantify them, the answers need to be grouped in some way, either through keywords, sentiments or some other connecting factor.

Although there is software you can use to analyze and sort these answers, the best way to sort them is to manually go through the open-ended responses and to create categories (provided your sample isn't too big). Once you've quantified your answers and turned them into a percentage, you can create a bar graph.

4. Demographic Questions

Questions that gather information about survey takers' demographic, such as background or income level, for example.

There are several different ways you can visualize demographic questions.

To break down populations by categories, you can use a pie chart.

Pictograms are another way to visualize demographic data. Because the units are simplified representations of concepts, they present data in a fun and thematic way.

You can also use a data map to visualize large sets of data from across a far-reaching area. They also allow readers to analyze the data in many different ways-in terms of overall patterns and region by region.

Survey Data Best Practices

Clearly label your charts.

The goal if for readers to be able to understand your charts in only a few seconds' glance. Use descriptive titles and captions, and make sure the values of your charts are labeled.

Don't round off percentages until the end of the creation process.

Rounding off number too early in the process can lead to skewed data. Percentages with too many digits appear cluttered on an infographic, so you do want to round them off, but wait until you are finishing up your design.

Point readers to where they can get further information.

Including an url to the source and any other vital resources at the bottom of the infographic. Doing this will help your credibility and allow readers to glean a better understanding of the information.

Don't overstuff your infographic with extraneous information.

Your copy should be focused and relevant. Cut out the clutter and save extra or outlying information for another infographic.

Don't overburden your infographic with too many embellishments.

Too many icons, crazy fonts, or glaring colors, and chartjunk. Those will only distract from the information you want to communicate. The focus of your infographic should be A) the charts and B) their titles.

Further Reading
How To Make An Infographic From Your Poll And Survey Data In 4 Steps How to Use Infographics to Tell Your Survey Story
How to Create Online Surveys People Will Actually Take [Infographic]

Visualise and distribute survey results with infographics
How To Summarize & Display Survey Data Want to make beautiful infographics? Sign up for Venngage.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to Visualize Survey Results - Venngage

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
One of the most commonly used types of information in infographic design is survey/poll data. That's because survey data is easily translated into graphs and charts, making it ideal for visual content like infographics.

# data[].attributes.body
Survey article about data collection and improvement.

# data[].attributes.body
Article about HP CEO Leo Apotheker.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Common Sense

Jeffrey A. Sonnenfeld, a professor at the Yale School of Management, has memorably called the rising Republican presidential star Carly Fiorina " one of the worst technology C.E.O.s in history."

But he didn't call her the worst technology chief executive in history. In fairness to Ms. Fiorina, she may not even be the worst chief executive of Hewlett-Packard.

A contender for that dubious distinction would surely be Léo Apotheker.

During their tenures at H.P., both Ms. Fiorina and Mr. Apotheker presided over what were hailed as transformative acquisitions: Compaq, the personal computer company that merged with H.P. in a $25 billion stock swap under Ms. Fiorina in 2002, and Autonomy, a British software concern that H.P. bought for $11 billion in 2011 in a deal overseen by Mr. Apotheker.

They were transformative, all right, though hardly in the way their proponents intended. H.P.'s stock price fell by more than half during Ms. Fiorina's six-year tenure and by roughly 50 percent in just the year Mr. Apotheker was chief executive. The board forced both Ms. Fiorina and Mr. Apotheker to resign.

The remnants of Compaq will be spun off by H.P., and in 2012 it wrote off $1.2 billion in value of the Compaq brand name. H.P. wrote off $8.8 billion related to Autonomy.

Some consider the Autonomy acquisition to be the worst corporate deal ever.

Just how bad is confirmed by the latest revelations from a shareholders' suit over the deal: Mr. Apotheker didn't even read the due diligence report on Autonomy that H.P. commissioned from KPMG, the giant accounting firm. Nor did Raymond J. Lane, the board chairman, or any other member of the board, according to a report prepared by the law firm Proskauer Rose, which was hired to represent H.P.'s independent directors.

Had they read even the executive summary, they would have discovered numerous warnings - enough to have prevented the deal in the first place, or at least to have led them to renegotiate it.

"For the C.E.O. not to have read it, for an acquisition this size, is highly disturbing," said Charles M. Elson, director of the Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware and co-author of "The Art of M&A Due Diligence." "And the entire board should have at least read the executive summary."

Image

Hewlett-Packard has sued Autonomy's former chief, Michael Lynch, who in turn has countersued. Credit Hazel Thompson for The New York Times

Colby A. Smith, a lawyer at the law firm Debevoise & Plimpton who is representing Mr. Apotheker, said, "Neither KPMG nor any member of the finance function nor any member of the board ever raised to Léo's attention any concern about finances or accounting at Autonomy."

I've read the full report, which was also disclosed in the shareholders' lawsuit. The executive summary stresses repeatedly that Autonomy stonewalled KPMG accountants, who were granted "access to very limited proprietary financial and tax information," the KPMG report says at the outset.

"The data and access provided to us during due diligence was very limited," the report says, which, it adds, is "not unusual" when dealing with acquisitions in Britain.

The report also questions Autonomy's claimed stellar revenue growth, a critical factor in justifying the exorbitant price H.P. ended up paying: "A significant amount of the revenue growth is due to acquisitions," the report said. Just how significant couldn't be determined given Autonomy's lack of cooperation, but the accountants warned that "organic growth rate has declined at both its core business and overall business."

While management maintained that growth rates "weren't impacted by one-time transactions, it was not prepared to provide customer data to validate this statement."

The report also raised questions about Autonomy's revenue recognition practices - how accounting for sales was done - although again it noted that without more information, it couldn't provide answers.

The report concluded, "The lack of access has limited the analysis we could perform."

The Proskauer report noted that Autonomy and its auditor, Deloitte, had specifically refused to give KPMG access to its work papers, even though a top executive working on the deal at H.P. had identified those papers as a "must have."

I'd say that for $11 billion, H.P. should have been able to see whatever it wanted.

What H.P. directors did get before approving the deal was a one-page "management summary," which dismissed the KPMG due diligence report with one sentence: "No material issues found."

An H.P. spokesman said it wasn't clear who prepared that summary but noted that at least six H.P. officials reviewed the accounting report in detail with the KPMG partner in charge of it, Andrew Gersh, who didn't raise any serious concerns.

In a statement, KPMG said, "We stand behind our work and our report, but beyond that our professional obligations and client confidentiality agreements prevent us from speaking in any greater detail."

On at least two occasions, Aug. 16, before the deal was announced, and Sept. 4, after the deal was announced and investors punished H.P.'s stock price, Mr. Lane, the board chairman, expressed serious reservations. In an email to Mr. Apotheker, Mr. Lane wrote that he was "haunted" by Autonomy, was worried that it was a "roll up," (meaning that growth came through acquisitions) and asked if H.P. could get out of the deal. "I don't think it's the panacea we think it is," he wrote.

Mr. Apotheker's reply hasn't been disclosed, but according to people who have seen it, he assured Mr. Lane that Autonomy had legitimate organic growth. H.P.'s lawyers also said it was extremely difficult to back out of a signed and announced deal under British law.

But the KPMG report surely provided enough evidence - Autonomy's refusal to back up its assertions with documents, as well as KPMG's warning that Autonomy's organic growth was declining and revenue growth came in large part through acquisitions, just as Mr. Lane feared - to renegotiate or cancel the deal before it was announced.

According to Professor Elson, "The KPMG report could have been a road map out of the deal." The lack of cooperation "was stressed so high in the executive summary, which makes it clear that they needed to do a deeper dive," he said. "That's the whole point of due diligence. If it raises questions, you have the right to restructure the deal or walk away. You don't buy a pig in a poke. You certainly shouldn't pay $11 billion to buy a pig in a poke."

As it turned out, it was only after the deal closed that H.P. discovered what it now maintains was a huge fraud on the part of Autonomy's top executives, including Autonomy's chief executive, Michael Lynch, and its chief financial officer, Sushovan Hussain. Even then, it took a whistle-blower and nearly six months of intensive forensic accounting work for H.P. to piece together its claims.

"No amount of due diligence could have uncovered that for more than two years prior to HP's acquisition of Autonomy, Mike Lynch and Sushovan Hussain conducted a systematic and sustained scheme to make Autonomy look like a rapidly growing, pure software company whose performance was consistently in line with market expectations," an H.P. spokeswoman, Sarah Pompei, said this week.

In March, H.P. accused Mr. Lynch and Mr. Hussain of fraud in a lawsuit filed in Britain. The company is seeking $5.1 billion in damages. Mr. Lynch has denied the accusations and promptly countersued for $150 million, accusing H.P. of false and negligent statements. A federal grand jury continues to hear evidence in the Justice Department's criminal investigation of H.P.'s accusations against the former Autonomy executives.

For its part, H.P. has revised its requirements for merger due diligence, including the formation of a senior-level risk management committee and greater involvement of the board's finance and investment committee.

Meanwhile, the question persists: In light of these disclosures, can Ms. Fiorina really be considered a worse chief executive than Mr. Apotheker? I posed the question this week to Professor Sonnenfeld, whose criticism Ms. Fiorina has dismissed as coming from a longtime friend and adviser to Bill Clinton.

"Apotheker's reign was terrible, but still not as destructive as Fiorina's reign of terror," Professor Sonnenfeld maintained. "The magnitude of the damage from the Compaq deal was greater, both culturally and financially, than Autonomy. And at least they got rid of Apotheker and wrote off Autonomy right away. Compaq lingered for a tortured decade."

A version of this article appears in print on , on Page B1 of the New York edition with the headline: A Deal That Still Haunts Hewlett-Packard. Order Reprints | Today's Paper | Subscribe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Léo Apotheker May Have Been Worse H.P. Chief Than Carly Fiorina

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Common Sense Jeffrey A. Sonnenfeld, a professor at the Yale School of Management, has memorably called the rising Republican presidential star Carly Fiorina " one of the worst technology C.E.O.s in history." But he didn't call her the worst technology chief executive in history.

# data[].attributes.body
Explains the different ways to display data results from questionnaires.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Surveys are one of the most cost effective ways of collecting data from current or prospective users.

Gathering meaningful insights starts with summarizing raw responses. How to summarize and interpret those responses aren't always immediately obvious.

There are many approaches to summarizing and visually displaying quantitative data and it seems people always have a strong opinion on the "right" way.

Here are some of the most common survey questions and response options and some ways we've summarized them. We'll cover many of these approaches at the Denver UX Bootcamp.

Binary Responses

If a question has only two possible response options (e.g., Male/Female, Yes/No, Agree/Disagree) then it is a binary (also called dichotomous) response option. Both options, when added, equal 100%. When summarizing just the sample of respondents, such as the percent of women who responded, you can use the ubiquitous pie graph.

Or you could go with something a bit more USA Today:

However, when you want to estimate the percent of users in your entire user population (or at least out of those who are likely to participate in your survey) who would agree with a statement, then you'll want to use confidence intervals around the percentage. The graph below shows the percentage of the 100 respondents that agreed to a statement.

The black error bars show us how much we can expect this percentage to fluctuate, if we sample a higher number of participants, or even the entire population.

Rating Scales

Rating scale questions can be those that explicitly ask participants to rate their level of agreement or satisfaction from 1 to 5, 1 to 7 or any bounded number range. You can also take questions that have ordered categories and assign numbers. For example, strongly disagree to strongly agree becomes 1 to 5.

Then the average score for one item can become a 4.2 for example.

For making comparisons between questions (such as between different websites), find the mean, standard deviation and total number of responses for all questions and compute the confidence interval. Display them side-by-side along with error bars (shown below).

Single Select

If participants are asked to pick one choice out of a number of alternatives, then this is a single-select response option. We summarize the proportion that chose each category. If you just want to summarize the responses in the survey, such as with income, a pie graph again will often suffice.

If, however, you want to estimate the prevalence of one response for the entire population (which is more common) to determine if it is statistically higher than another, then using bar graphs with confidence intervals will be more helpful.

For example, if respondents were asked the primary method by which they pay their online bill (laptop, smartphone, tablet or desktop), we can summarize this single-select question below.

The total percentage selecting any category will add up to 100%. The percentages tell us the percent of respondents that selected the option, and the confidence intervals (black error bars) show us how much we could expect the percentages to fluctuate, if we were to sample all users (or even a much larger sample).

When error bars do not overlap, there is statistical significance. For example, even if thousands more participants responded to the survey in this example, it's highly improbable that more participants pay their bill using a tablet versus using a smartphone.

Multiple Select

If participants are allowed to select "all that apply," the total number of responses will add up to more than 100%. We can still summarize the proportion selecting using the binary confidence intervals used in the single-select method.

For example, the following graph shows the percent of respondents who selected each attribute they found important when looking for a computer to purchase.

We can see that features were the most selected item, with 44% of the respondents selecting it. The confidence interval tells us that even if we had a much larger sample size, it's extremely unlikely that features would become a less popular attribute than the others presented. The lower boundary of the error bar is still above the next choice (price).

Net Promoter Questions

The Net Promoter Question (How likely is it that you'll recommend a product to a friend?) is a rating scale, but is usually presented as a difference between two paired proportions-the proportion of promoters minus the proportion of detractors. An example NPS score of 46% is shown below.

You can also compare the proportion of promoters, passives and neutrals separately to, say, an earlier year using confidence intervals again.

Forced Rank Questions

If you ask participants to rank options, such as the aspects they find the most important when purchasing a computer, it is a forced rank question. These look like rating scales but have different properties, called ipsative data, as each respondent's score will add up to a fixed number (e.g. if there are six options to rank, each user's responses will add up to 6+5+4+3+2+1 =21). Typically, you want to know which option has the statistically lowest rank (where lower numbers mean higher ranks) and we can also display the average rank with confidence intervals.

Processor in this case is the most important attribute, although not statistically distinguishable from price.

Open-Ended Comments

Most surveys will include at least one open-ended question. For example, what's one thing would you improve on a website? While there are automatic ways of summarizing comments, such as matching algorithms or word clouds, we find taking the time to sort them with one or more analysts generates the best insights.

Once you have categories, you can then find the percentage of comments that fall into each group and even put confidence intervals around these. The graph below shows the most common categories derived from 110 participants' open comments on what they would improve on their health provider's website along with confidence intervals around the frequency.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
MeasuringU: How to Summarize & Display Survey Data

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Surveys are one of the most cost effective ways of collecting data from current or prospective users. Gathering meaningful insights starts with summarizing raw responses. How to summarize and interpret those responses aren't always immediately obvious. There are many approaches to summarizing and visually displaying quantitative data and it seems people always have a strong opinion on the "right" way.

# data[].attributes.body
Six steps to collecting data, kinda interesting...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
If an organization is considering whether to collect data on its own or get help from an external consultant, it will need to have enough information to make an informed decision about how to proceed.

This section outlines some of the key considerations that may arise during various steps in the data collection process. There is no requirement that these steps be followed or pursued in the order that they are written. The model presented is offered as a reference tool. How data is gathered and analyzed depends on many factors, including the context, the issue that needs to be monitored, the purpose of the data collection, and the nature and size of the organization.

The main consideration is to make sure that any information collected is done in a way and for a purpose that is consistent with the Code and complies with freedom of information and privacy protection legislation. In the interest of effectiveness and efficiency, it is recommended that efforts be made to collect data that will shed light on issues or opportunities. To protect the credibility and reliability of data, information should be gathered using accepted data collection techniques.

Step 1: Identify issues and/or opportunities for collecting data

The first step is to identify issues and/or opportunities for collecting data and to decide what next steps to take. To do this, it may be helpful to conduct an internal and external assessment to understand what is happening inside and outside of your organization.

Some organizations, like FCP and Legislated Employment Equity Plan (LEEP) employers, are given specific direction on what issues should be explored and how data must be collected. Other organizations may have more flexibility to decide when and how to collect information to achieve certain goals. Some of the non-exhaustive questions identified below may apply to a diverse range of organizations and audiences, including employees and service users. Depending on the organization, these questions may be considered at Step 1, or at different stages in a data collection process.

Conduct a review of all policies, practices and procedures applicable to employees, service users or another appropriate audience:

Does the organization have human resources and human rights policies, practices and procedures that are accessible to all employees or to the people they serve?

Does the organization have clear, transparent and fair complaint procedures in place to deal with allegations of discrimination, harassment or systemic barriers?

Have any claims, grievances or allegations been made or received relating to discrimination, harassment or systemic barriers?

Do any signal barriers to persons protected under the Code and/or other individuals/groups in society based on a non-Code ground?

Have any been dealt with appropriately and in accordance with existing polices, practices and procedures?

Explore organizational culture from a human rights, diversity and equity-inclusion lens:

What are the organization's mandate, goals and core values?

What is the history of the organization?

Are equity, diversity and inclusiveness supported, reflected and promoted by senior leaders throughout the organization?

Are performance measures in place to motivate the achievement of an organization's strategic human resources, human rights, equity and diversity goals?

Do employees feel that the organization is diverse, inclusive, and provides equal opportunity for learning and advancement?

How are decisions made?

How are employment, programming or service delivery opportunities advertised?

Does the organization have formal, transparent and fair processes in place to recruit, hire, promote, terminate and retire staff?

Does the organization have a clear system of discipline?

Is this system perceived to be applied fairly and consistently?

Do service users feel that they are welcome, valued, and able to use the services offered by the organization?

Assess external context:

Are there best practices in the industry/sector or among similar organizations that can be learned from?

Are there objective data or research studies showing that discrimination or systemic barriers exist or do not exist in the organization, industry/sector or similar organizations?

Is there evidence from other organizations or jurisdictions that a policy, program or practice, similar to one in place at the organization, has had a positive or negative impact on Code-protected persons or other marginalized persons in society?

How is the organization perceived by the community it operates in?

Have the media or advocacy groups complimented or criticized the organization about human rights, human resource or equity issues?

What are the demographics of the people the organization serves or the community it operates in?

Are the demographics changing or projected to change in the future?

Is the organization proactively looking at ways to make sure that it has the skills and knowledge to meet the potential needs and concerns of this changing demographic?

Check representation:

Compare the organization's workforce makeup to the availability of labour or the demographics of the service users in the community, city, region, province and/or country it operates in.

Is the organization representative of and responsive to the needs of the community it serves?

At this stage, a detailed comparison is not needed. The goal here is to identify key issues and/or opportunities that may need further study by noting obvious gaps, disparities or trends.

Organizations can:

Estimate how people or groups identified by Code grounds and other persons/groups are represented and distributed among their employees or service users by levels of responsibility, occupation, branch, department or other appropriate measure.

Are there any areas in the organization or in service delivery where the persons or groups seem to be obviously over-represented or under-represented?

Finding the above information can be challenging for smaller organizations, but the internet offers a wealth of resources to choose from. Media reports may offer insights, as well as on-line resources offered by the OHRC, Statistics Canada, the City of Toronto, government agencies, and community organizations that focus on Code and non- Code ground-related topics. Information may also be gathered from various sources using accepted data collection research methodologies discussed in Step 3.

It is to be expected that an internal and external assessment of the organization, in light of the questions listed above, may result in a number of potential issues and/or opportunities for exploring data collection. Before proceeding to Step 2, organizations may wish to consider whether there are any preliminary actions that can be taken to address these issues and/or opportunities, without collecting data ( e.g. training, policy development).

Example: The review in Step 1 may have identified the following issues and/or opportunities for collecting data:

Positive public feedback received about a pilot community policing project in high-crime neighbourhoods

Unclear and inconsistent human rights policies and procedures in place to address sexual harassment.

The above examples present a potential opportunity or problematic human rights issue, respectively, and could lend themselves to data collection. Decisions need to be made about how best to address the identified opportunities and/or issues and whether it would be appropriate to act, based on the assessments in Step 1 (either instead of or together with further data collection).

If the results of the internal and external assessment seem to show that the organization does not have any pressing problems with discrimination and/or systemic barriers, and is generally in compliance with the Code and OHRC policies, consider whether the organization could still benefit from proactively implementing a data collection initiative (for example, to help monitor the ongoing effectiveness and suitability of policies, programs and intervention strategies).

Step 2: Select issue(s) and/or opportunity(ies) and set goals

The focus of Step 2 is choosing a priority issue(s) and/or opportunity(ies) for collecting data, and then setting goals and objectives.

The organization reviews the issues and/or opportunities identified from the internal and external assessment done in Step 1, and picks one or more specific issues and/or opportunities for starting a data collection project from among the list of priorities. Some of the questions an organization can consider when deciding to prioritize an issue and/or opportunity for gathering data include:

Is there a fundamental reason or opportunity to collect data from which other issues and/or opportunities seem to arise?

Example: An aging taxpayer base provides a government body with a pressing reason to collect data on this group's projected size, needs and revenue base. This changing demographic also presents an opportunity for the government body to ensure that it is proactively developing policies, programs and services that are accessible and appropriate to meet the needs and concerns of these taxpayers.

Did the internal and external assessment of the organization in Step 1 reveal any critical gaps or trends that are apparent in the organization, industry/sector or similar organizations?

Is there one particular area that has drawn positive/negative media attention or been subject to multiple complaints, internal rumours and concerns?

Does there seem to be a greater diversity or lack of diversity in one area compared to others?

Goal-setting

While the organization may intend to collect data relating to multiple issues and/or opportunities at the same time, the next steps, including goal-setting, should be individualized for each issue and/or opportunity.

The specific goal(s) defined for each issue and/or opportunity may depend on a hypothesis or guess about what is happening that can be tested using data collection techniques and analysis.

Example: A downtown Toronto hotel receives complaints from guests, who self-identify as being gay, about the unwelcome treatment they received from staff. A hypothesis might be that hotel staff lack sufficient awareness and training about how to deal respectfully with guests who are gay, or are perceived to be from the larger LGBT community. The goal is to get enough evidence to test this hypothesis.

Step 2 can also involve an organization brainstorming a smaller set of questions that may be answered by collecting data. Rather than asking a general question like, "Is there any evidence of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in this hotel?" one might ask, "What percentage of hotel guests self-identify as being part of the LGBT community?" and "What are the perceptions of the service received by self-identified LGBT patrons?" Ultimately, data that is collected should be rationally connected to the goals set and the overall purpose for collecting the data.

Step 3: Plan an approach and methods

In Step 3, organizations will make decisions about who will be surveyed, how data will be collected, the sources of data that will be used, and the duration of the data collection project, among other questions. These decisions may be made in consultation with an expert. The methods and approaches will flow from the goals set in Step 2, and will vary significantly depending on a number of factors, including the organization's context, size, resources, and the purpose and complexity of the issue(s) or opportunity(ies) selected.

Some of the questions to consider at this stage include:

Who will the data be collected about?

The "group of interest" (e.g. youth service users of a local community centre who cannot read and speak English as a second language) will be the focus of the study, and the data collection methods used will refer to this group, or the persons within it, depending on the goals of the project.

Understanding discrimination

When thinking about who the data will be collected about, it is important to consider who you think will be most affected by, for example, the discrimination or inequities that you wish to measure. Is it a broad category (e.g. all service users who cannot read), or a sub-set of that category (e.g. youth service users who cannot read)? The italicized words refer to a unique characteristic about a broader group that an organization may wish to gather information about.

Depending on factors like the goals of the data collection project, the organization's size, resources and time, data may be gathered about many sub-sets within a broader group of interest (e.g. youth service users who cannot read and who speak English as a second language).

Collecting data about a group of interest that shares characteristics, based on several Code or non-Code grounds, can help an organization understand the behaviour, perceptions, values and demographic makeup of services users and other subjects of interest. Generally speaking, gathering data that reflects more than one Code and/or non-Code ground can allow for richer, nuanced information and more complex analysis.

It is important to recognize that based on their unique combination of identities, people may be exposed to particular forms of discrimination. Multiple forms of discrimination can intersect and compound to form a unique experience of discrimination. This perspective is referred to as an "intersectional" analysis of discrimination.

Example: A South Asian male youth service user, who cannot read and speaks limited English, may face discrimination on any of the grounds of age, race, colour, ancestry, ethnic origin, place of origin, gender, disability or perceived disability ( e.g. could be seen as having a learning disability). However, he may also be exposed to discrimination on intersecting grounds based on being identified as a "young, illiterate Indian male from a foreign country," based on the various assumptions or stereotypes that are uniquely associated with this socially significant interaction of multiple identity factors.

To better understand the potential impact of multiple identity factors, or intersectionality, when collecting and analyzing data about a group of interest, it may be helpful to consult with communities, and review applicable research and other relevant documents that highlight how the dynamic of discrimination and disadvantage can play out in a practical way for persons identified by Code and non- Code grounds. The OHRC's recent edition of Human Rights at Work is a useful reference for this purpose. The OHRC has also developed policies and guidelines that provide a more detailed outline of how the Code applies to the various grounds (see Appendix G for a list of OHRC guides, policies and guidelines).

Who will the group of interest be compared to?

The "comparator group" should be persons who share one or more characteristics with the persons in the group of interest, but differ in the key characteristic(s) being studied (e.g. youth service users who cannot read but can speak English fluently). The experiences of youth service users who cannot read and who speak English as a second language can then be compared to youth service users who cannot read but can speak English fluently.

What locations or geographical areas will the data be gathered from?

Some data collection initiatives require gathering data from multiple sizes, groups or communities located in different locations and geographical areas. When determining where to collect information from, key factors to consider include who the data will be collected about and who the data will be compared to.

Example: A local community centre is interested in making its current youth literacy program more responsive to the needs of an increased number of youth in the surrounding area who cannot read and who speak English as a second language. The community centre plans to gather information about the community it serves and the geographical region it is located in. Data is gathered from the community centre's pre-existing records relating to its service users, including people who attend the youth literacy program or have expressed an interest in it. Publicly available information about the characteristics of the surrounding neighbourhood is also explored, among other data sources.

What categories will be used to identify the group of interest and comparator group?

Choosing categories provides a way to organize the information that is collected. This can be done either before collecting data, as discussed in this step, or after data is collected (see Step 5).

In some cases, although it is not required, it is preferable to use pre-determined categories such as those developed by Statistics Canada. There are certain benefits to this approach.

Example: Organizations can be confident that the 12 racial groups used by Statistics Canada will represent how the majority of Canadians racially classify themselves. In addition, use of these categories is most likely to produce reliable and valid results and enable researchers to directly compare the results of their studies to Census data collected by Statistics Canada.

The limitations are that if these categories are used, some respondents may not identify with them or may object to them. Another limitation is that Statistics Canada does not produce Census data on all grounds (for example, on sexual orientation).

For a fee, Statistics Canada will customize its data. For example, it can break it down to "disaggregated" data for a local labour market or for a particular occupational category.

Another limitation is that the Statistics Canada categories may be too broad depending on the goals selected in Step 2.

Example: Using a broad category such as "racialized" can mask important differences between racialized groups, since racialized groups are not subject to exactly the same experiences, racial stereotypes and types of discrimination. However, when it is necessary to describe people collectively, the term "racialized person" or "racialized group" is preferred over terms like "racial minority," "visible minority," "person of colour" or "non-White" as it expresses race as a social construct rather than as a description based on perceived biological traits. Also, these other terms treat "White" as the norm that racialized persons are to be compared to, and have a tendency to group all racialized persons in one category, as if they are all the same.

Consider other categories to describe the groups selected (for example, relating to job or service categories). Organizations may ultimately choose the categories that best reflect where the organization is at in terms of achieving its human rights, equity and diversity goals.

How should data be collected?

In the context of human rights, social-science researchers are commonly asked to lead or help with data collection projects. Two types of data are used in social science research: qualitative and quantitative. A good research effort involves the use of both types. Both approaches, while distinct, can overlap and rely on the other to produce meaningful data, analysis and results.

Qualitative data:

Typically, data is called "qualitative" if it is in the form of words, but may also include any information that is not numerical in form, such as photographs, videos and sound recordings.

Qualitative methods are aimed at describing a specific context, event, people or relationship in a broad contextual way, by trying to understand the underlying reasons for behaviour, thoughts and feelings.

Common qualitative research methods include observation, one-on-one interviews, focus groups and intensive case studies.

Example: A restaurant chain wants to improve service and access to customers with disabilities. Management decides to collect qualitative information using focus groups consisting of a range of stakeholders, including customers and representatives of organizations from the disability community.
Potential strengths:

qualitative data excels at "telling the story" from the participant's viewpoint (it helps participants feel like they have been heard)

can help others better understand the issue or problem by providing the rich descriptive detail that explains the human context of numerical results

Potential weaknesses:

perceived that the accuracy of qualitative data can be influenced by false, subjective or manipulated testimonies. Good qualitative data, checked by a professional researcher and gathered using accepted data collection research methods, can address the impact of such factors

depending on the nature and size of the project, as well as the sophistication of the methods and analysis used, can take a significant amount of time, be very labour-intensive, and yield results that may not be general enough for policy-making and decision-making purposes.

Quantitative data:

Example: A simple 1- 5 rating variable for the survey statement, "My union handles human rights grievances in a sensitive and efficient manner" gives respondents the option of circling: 1 (Strongly Disagree), 2 (Disagree), 3 (Neutral) 4 (Agree) and 5 (Strongly Agree).

A respondent circles "2 = Disagree." To understand the value of "2" here, a researcher must consider some of the judgments and assumptions that are behind this choice. Did the respondent understand the term "human rights grievance"? Has the respondent had experience filing a grievance with the union? Does the respondent like unions generally?
Potential strengths: Potential weaknesses:
a focus on numbers and rankings alone can overly simplify or lead to an inaccurate understanding of complex situations and realities, unless a broader context is provided

Example: An employment data survey of the Custodial Services Division of a large organization reveals that 80% of the cleaning staff are women and that 6 of 7 Custodial Services supervisors are men. A comparison between these figures and gap data from Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC) shows that, while there is an overrepresentation of women in the ranks of cleaners, there is no gap for women in the ranks of supervisors.

The reason for the seeming discrepancy is that HRSDC gap data is based on availability. Nationally, so few women are Custodial Services supervisors that there is a statistically insignificant availability, giving rise to the conclusion that there is no numerical gap with respect to women supervisors. This conclusion, however, does not make sense since the organization knows that the 200:40 women to men cleaning staff ratio is supervised by a 6:1 male to female supervisory staff ratio. The organization decides to ignore the HRSDC data and apply common sense by setting up career advancement mentoring and other policies and programs to increase the number of female supervisors in its workforce.

subject to multiple interpretations of what the numbers actually mean, which can lead to a distorted understanding of a research topic of interest. This potential weakness can be minimized by using accepted quantitative research methods and identifying appropriate warnings to explain the parameters and assumptions underlying the research

depending on the nature and size of the project, as well as the sophistication of the methods and analysis used, it can be costly to gather the required information

in areas of research that are relatively new or where tools, indicators, procedures and sources are far from settled, statistical data can be lacking or of unequal quality, causing problems for comparisons. These difficulties are often compounded by other issues, like definition problems (e.g. the meaning of the word "freedom" - depending on the interpretation of the word chosen, it may produce different issues and results).

What sources of data should be used to collect information?

Qualitative and quantitative data are generally gathered from more than one source. Where possible, two or more of the following sources should be used together to strengthen reliability and consistency in results.

Pre-existing or official data

Pre-existing or official data is information that has already been documented (e.g. newspaper clippings, case law, Statistics Canada census data, photographs) or is created by an organization during its routine business operations (e.g. employee personnel files, student registration forms, annual reports, occurrence reports). This data may contain information that directly relates to specific Code grounds like race, but more commonly will relate only indirectly (for example, in the form of names, place of origin or ethnicity). This type of information could be used as proxies or stand-ins for race, but would be less reliable than actually having self-reported racial data.
Potential strengths:

is efficient. Avoids the time, energy, expense and disruption involved in collecting data as a separate step from running daily operations

Example: Outcomes of workplace recruitment, hiring, promotions and terminations can be recorded, as can events such as interventions by security guards and customer complaints. When recording these events, relevant Code ground and non- Code classifications could also be included. This data could then be examined for trends over time to show whether discrimination or systemic barriers exist, may exist or do not exist.
Potential weaknesses:

to be a useful source of information, organizations need to be willing to collect the data as part of their ordinary record-keeping procedures

the reliability of this data will depend on the diligence and accuracy of the reporting done by the people collecting it.

Survey data

Survey research is a broad area and generally includes any measurement procedures that involve asking respondents questions. A "survey" can range from a short paper-and-pencil questionnaire to an in-depth one-on-one interview (interviews will be discussed further below).

In designing a survey, it is important to consider the specific characteristics of the respondents, to make sure that the questions are relevant, clear, accessible and easy to understand. Some practical considerations to keep in mind are whether the respondents can read, have language or cultural barriers, have disabilities, and can be easily reached.
Potential strengths:

very useful for documenting an individual's perceptions and perceived experiences of an organization's work culture, service delivery or other areas of interest

Example: The TDSB's 2006 Student Census, Grades 7-12 System Overview included a component on how senior and secondary school students generally perceived their schooling and out-of-school experiences in 10 areas, including school safety and home support and involvement.

can contain questions that are quantitative or qualitative in nature, or a combination of both

can be conducted on a small or large scale.

Potential weaknesses:

quality and reliability of survey data depends on factors like the expertise of the people conducting them, the design and appropriateness of the questions asked, and the credibility of the methods used to analyze and interpret the results

may not provide an accurate measure of how others perceive a person's background or experience.

Example: A transgender employee may self-identify as female but a third party may identify her as male.

Focus groups and interviews

Interviews and focus groups (also referred to as "group interviews") allow for information to be provided orally, either individually or in a group setting. The data can be recorded in a wide variety of ways including written notes, audio recording and video recording.

Focus groups:

In focus groups, the interviewer facilitates the session. A select group of people are brought together, asked questions, encouraged to listen to each other's comments, and have their answers recorded. The same set of questions may be used for a number of different groups, each of which is constituted slightly differently, and for a range of purposes.

Focus groups may be facilitated by professionals, but this is not always needed. The decision to hire a professional facilitator may depend on the goals of the focus group research, the nature of the questions asked, the skills and experience of staff taking part, and the need for confidentiality or anonymity.

Example: To get the unique perspective of each group, an organization may wish to hold separate focus groups for representatives of each of the organization's internal and external stakeholder groups, such as senior management, front-line employees, service users, union representatives and community groups. Or, it may be of greater value to organize a group that includes people representing all key internal and external stakeholders, to allow for contrasting ideas to be expressed and discussed.

Whatever format is chosen, it is important that the focus group is structured and managed in a way that cultivates a "safe space" for people to share their experiences. In some cases, this may not be possible without setting up separate focus groups or hiring a professional facilitator who is not connected to the organization.
Potential strengths:

focus groups allow for multiple narratives to be voiced in one "interview" about a research topic of interest

act as tools for education because discussion among participants can illuminate the participants' and the researcher's views, helping to further refine research about a particular topic of interest.

Potential weakness:

does not allow participants to fully express their individual opinions and narratives, or ask questions when they immediately come to mind, because of the need to hear and accommodate other voices.

Interviews:

Typically, interviews involve a set of standard questions being asked of all respondents, on a one-on-one basis, so that accurate trends and gaps can be drawn from the data. Interviews are commonly conducted face-to-face, but for more rapid results, can also be done over the telephone, or, as technology advances, through video-conferencing and other means.
Potential strengths: Potential weaknesses:
Observed data

Trained staff or external experts can gather data by identifying and recording the characteristics and behaviour of research subjects through observation, either within or outside of an organization. Observed data can include information gathered using all of the senses available to the researcher, including sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch.

Example: A human rights organization that offers a mediation service hires a mediation expert to observe mediators and service users and provide feedback about any issues of concern related to human rights. To minimize potential stress and anxiety experienced by the people being observed, staff and service users are informed in advance of the purpose and goals of the exercise. Service users' consent is sought. Staff is advised that the observed data gathered will only be used for research purposes and not shared with their managers. The expert maintains access to the data, and the results are reported on an aggregated and summarized basis to prevent individuals from being identified.

Hiring experts, while potentially expensive, can add validity and credibility to research analysis because they are often perceived as having no vested interest in the research results.

Information gathered using observation techniques differs from interviewing, because the observer does not actively ask the respondent questions. Observed data can include everything from field research, where someone lives in another context or culture for a period of time (participant observation), to photographs that show the interaction between service providers and service users (direct observation). The data can be recorded in many of the same ways as interviews (taking notes, audio, video) and through pictures, photos or drawings.
Potential strengths:

an effective and capable observer can provide an objective third viewpoint on what is going on, and draw out implications that are not obvious or that people are unaware of

can be relatively inexpensive depending on factors like the size of the project, its goals, the organization's resources and the duration of the project.

Potential weaknesses:

an observer, trained or otherwise, can influence the behaviour of the people being observed (for example, people could be motivated to behave better while under observation), which may ultimately affect the accuracy of observed results

can cause potential stress and anxiety for the people being observed, more than the use of other data collection methods. Efforts can be made to minimize stress and anxiety by using effective communication strategies to inform participants, in advance, of the purpose, goals, confidentiality measures, duration of the project and other key information

an observer, trained or otherwise, may not always be able to accurately differentiate within or between certain groups of people, particularly when an identity (ies) is/are non-evident (e.g. religion, mental illness, sexual orientation). A survey requesting self-identification information might be more effective in this regard.

Each source of data used to collect information has its strengths and weaknesses. Some of the more common potential strengths and weaknesses identified above have been highlighted. Analyzing data from multiple perspectives and relying on data from different sources can strengthen the conclusions drawn from research. A combination of statistical analysis, observational data, legal analysis, documentary analysis, in-depth interviews and external and/or internal consultation can help maximize understanding of a given situation. Organizations should choose the sources of data that best suit their program goals, context, resources and organizational culture.

How long will the data be collected (the scope of data collection)?

Data can be collected and analyzed on a short-term or project basis in response to situations or needs that arise from time to time. A short-term data collection project would include a start and a finish date, with set deliverables to be carried out over a certain period of time.

The best practice is to collect data on an ongoing, permanent basis, and to analyze this data as often as is needed to identify, address and monitor barriers to Code-protected persons or other persons based on non- Code grounds.

Data collected in a time-limited study may be less complete than data collected through ongoing monitoring. This is because short-term studies do not allow for the assessment of trends, patterns or changes over time. However, where costs, time and resources are a factor, short-term studies may be the preferred choice to fulfil a need and project goals.

Other factors may also influence the reliability of the data. For example, people may modify behaviour while under scrutiny during the data collection period.

Step 4: Collect data

When planning on how best to collect data in Step 4, it is important to be aware of the practical considerations and best practices for addressing logistical challenges organizations often face at this stage of the process. Implementing a data collection plan requires attention to matters such as:

Getting buy-in from senior leadership and key stakeholders, in or outside of the organization. This group could include boards of directors, management committees, union representatives, employees, community groups, tenants, customers and service users.

Establishing a steering committee or selecting a person(s) to be consulted and held accountable for all major decisions about the data collection process, such as design, logistics, communication management, coordination and finances.

Determining who will collect the data (e.g., experts or trained employees).

Identifying the logistics, resources, technology and people needed to develop and implement a data collection initiative.

Anticipating and addressing key stakeholder concerns and questions about the project.

Designing a communication and consultation strategy that will explain the data collection initiative and encourage the highest possible participation rate.

Protecting privacy and personal information by using carefully controlled procedures for collecting, storing and accessing data that comply with privacy, human rights and other legislation. Dignity and confidentiality must be respected.

Minimizing the impact and inconvenience for the people affected in the workplace or service environment, which includes choosing the best time to collect the data.

Aiming for flexibility to allow for changes without great expense or inconvenience.

Considering a test period or a pilot phase to allow you to improve and modify data collection methods, as may be needed.

Step 5: Analyze and interpret data

Step 5 involves analyzing and interpreting the data collected. Whether quantitative and/or qualitative methods of gathering data are used, the analysis can be complex, or less so, depending on the methods used and the amount of data collected.

Explaining the technical steps involved in analyzing and interpreting data is beyond the scope of this guide. An organization will have to determine whether it has the internal capacity and expertise to analyze and interpret data itself, or whether it will need the help of an external consultant.

A smaller organization that has basic data collection needs may be able to rely on internal expertise and existing resources to interpret the meaning of gathered data.

Example: An organization with 50 employees wants to find out if it has enough women working in management positions, and if there are barriers to equal opportunity and advancement. The organization counts the number of female employees it has (25), and determines how many of these employees are working in supervisory and management positions (two). A few motivated employees identify some issues of concern, like gender discrimination, that may have broader implications for the organization as a whole.

After deciding to do an internal and external assessment (Step 1), and gather qualitative data using focus groups and interviews with current and past employees, senior leadership decides that barriers exist for women in the organization's recruitment, hiring, promotion and human resources policies, processes and practices. Efforts are made to work with female employees, human resources and other staff to address these barriers. The organization makes a commitment to foster a more equitable, inclusive work environment for all employees.

Step 6: Act on results

Once an organization has analyzed and interpreted the results of the data collected, it may decide to act on the data, collect more of the same type of data or modify its approach.

Quantitative and qualitative information can provide a solid basis for creating an effective action plan designed to achieve strategic organizational human resources, human rights, equity and diversity goals identified through the data collection process. If an organization feels it has enough information to develop an action plan, it should consider including the following elements:

a summary of the results of the analysis and interpretation of the data

identification of the barriers, gaps and opportunities that exist or may exist for Code-protected persons and other individuals/groups based on non-Code grounds

steps that will be taken to address these barriers, gaps or opportunities now and in the future

realistic, attainable goals with short-term and longer-term timelines

input sought from stakeholders and affected communities

how progress in meeting these goals will be monitored, evaluated and reported.

In some cases, an organization may decide that it needs to collect more information because there are gaps in the data collected, or areas where the data is unclear or inconclusive. This may prompt them to conduct a more detailed internal and external assessment (go back to Step 1) or try another approach.

In the end, there is no one or "right way" to conduct a data collection initiative. The experiences of Mount Sinai Hospital, KPMG Canada, the Keewatin-Patricia District School Board, TD Bank Financial Group, the University of Guelph and the DiverseCity Counts project and featured in the Appendices reflect this statement, yet also show some similarities in terms of the best practices and lessons learned.

Six steps to success

Step 1: Identify issues and/or opportunities for collecting data
Step 2: Select issue(s) and/or opportunity(ies) and set goals
Step 3: Plan an approach and methods

How should data be collected?

Qualitative Data

Quantitative Data

What sources of data should be used to collect information?

How long will the data be collected (the scope of data collection)?
Step 4: Collect data
Step 5: Analyze and interpret data
Step 6: Act on result

The Employment Equity Act (the Act) applies to federally regulated employers, like banks, transportation and communication companies with 100 or more employees, as well as to Crown corporations and the federal public service. Employers covered by the Act are known as Legislated Employment Equity Plan (LEEP) employers.
Statistics Canada online: www.statcan.gc.ca.
The City of Toronto offers many publications and reports on its website relating to an array of topics by sector or topic, including the labour force. See City of Toronto, Publications and reports, online: www.toronto.ca/business_publications/publications.htm.
The term "comparator group" is used to determine whether human rights "discrimination" in fact exists in a scenario. Comparison is made between a group claiming discrimination and another group that shares the relevant characteristics, to determine if disadvantage, denial, devaluation, oppression or marginalization has been experienced. A comparator group must share relevant characteristics with the group of interest in the area being questioned for comparison to be meaningful. Who the appropriate comparator group is will depend on the context and is often contested between litigants. Often the comparator group is a more privileged group in society, often the dominant group.
S. Wortley, The Collection of Race-Based Statistics Within the Criminal Justice and Educational Systems: A Report for the Ontario Human Rights Commission (Centre of Criminology, University of Toronto) [unpublished], online: www.ohrc.on.ca.
Data collection based on certain grounds, such as ethnic origin, sex and disability, has been done for many years under federal employment equity legislation, the national census that takes place every five years or in accordance with international requirements. In comparison, data collection on other grounds, such as sexual orientation, has not been done much in the past. Notably, the national Census does not include a question about sexual orientation, although sexual orientation has been included on other non-mandatory surveys and has been the subject of testing. Statistics Canada, Ministry of Industry "2006 Census Content Consultation Report, Catalogue No. 92-130-XE (2003, Revised in February 2004).
C. Agocs, "Surfacing Racism in the Workplace: Qualitative and Quantitative Evidence of Systemic Discrimination" (2004) 3:3 Canadian Diversity at 26, online: www.ohrc.on.ca. For more information about Statistics Canada's "custom services" see Statistics Canada, supra note 27.
S. Wortley, The Collection of Race-Based Statistics Within the Criminal Justice and Educational Systems: A Report for the Ontario Human Rights Commission (Centre of Criminology, University of Toronto) [unpublished], online: www.ohrc.on.ca at 6.
See Ontario Human Rights Commission's Policy and Guidelines on Racism and Racial Discrimination (2005), online: www.ohrc.on.ca at 9-10.
Social Science is defined as the scientific study of human society and social relationships. The Concise Oxford Dictionary Ninth Edition, s.v. "social science."
J.-C. Icart, M. Labelle, R. Antonius, Indicators for Evaluating Municipal Policies Aimed at Fighting Racism and Discrimination, Report presented to UNESCO, Fight against Discrimination and Racism Section, Division of Human Rights and Fight against Discrimination Sector for Social and Human Sciences (MontréaI, Québec: International Observatory of Racism and Discrimination: Centre for Research on Immigration, Ethnicity and Citizenship (CRIEC), Université du Québec à Montréal, 2005) at 47, online: CRIEC www.criec.uqam.ca/pdf/CRIEC%20Cahier%2028%20(en).pdf.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
6. What is involved in collecting data - six steps to success

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If an organization is considering whether to collect data on its own or get help from an external consultant, it will need to have enough information to make an informed decision about how to proceed. This section outlines some of the key considerations that may arise during various steps in the data collection process.

# data[].attributes.body
Interesting take on HP CEO Apotheker.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Commentary
(MoneyWatch) Hewlett-Packard ( HPQ) has been blaming one thing after another for its poor performance. It hired director Meg Whitman as a CEO replacement for fired Leo Apotheker, a main scapegoat originally hired to replace fired Mark Hurd who was hired to replace fired Carly Fiorina. Corporate politics can be so complicated.

Apotheker, in particular, was tagged as a ruinous influence responsible for things like wanting to break HP up into multiple parts. And now, ironically, the company's board is apparently studying whether to break up the company into parts, reports news outlet Quartz.

According to the report, a possible break-up is one option HP's board is considering as a way to "obtain maximum value for shareholders," which is generally corporate-speak for "our stock is in the dumps and we need investors to think we're worth owning again." Supposedly, if the company's fortunes can revive in the near term, the break-up will be put on ice.

HP alluded to the possible break-up in the company's annual report, filed with the SEC on December 27, 2012, citing it as a risk factor: "We also continue to evaluate the potential disposition of assets and businesses that may no longer help us meet our objectives."
A feeling of deja vu
Such declarations are not uncommon in the corporate world. But in this case it comes after HP's previous announcement that it would spin off the PC division -- a decision that was made by Apotheker and the board -- more than a year ago. The idea was to emulate IBM ( IBM), which in the 1990s famously moved into services and software and then rid itself of its PC division, which was weighing down Big Blue's profits as the price of computers plunged.

Turns out Apotheker was right. But while margins have continued to drop on HP's PC business, partly because desktops and laptops became bargaining chips for salespeople who wanted ways to sweeten deals for servers and services, the company has yet to cut ties with the unit. Meanwhile, the server market has continued to be highly competitive, with Dell (which is about to go private in a bid to get strategic decisions out of the public eye) coming on strong and IBM still a powerhouse.
Writedowns for big mistakes
And that service business? HP had to write down much of what it paid for the former EDS, with the 2008 acquisition failing to spark growth in its own consulting business. And the attempt to get deeper into business of selling software to big companies ended badly with the acquisition of U.K. software vendor Autonomy -- an acquisition that Whitman would eventually say she was sorry she voted for, even though the company should have had all the resources necessary to do a reasonably valuation and fiscal analysis.

HP, which bought Autonomy for $10 billion in 2011, last year had to take an $8.8 billion charge on the company, with roughly $5 billion of that related to what HP says was improper accounting at the unit.

HP's board claimed to turn from a spin-off of a division because it was sure Whitman could pull things together into a common strategy to harness and leverage the company's resources ... or whatever "in" wording a corporate communications department might use. The real reason for the about-face was the scathing reaction of investors who could only see all those revenue dollars sail out the door and customers and business partners who didn't want to be left high and dry.

Now there's an about-about-face because reality has set in. There was no magical solution -- no apparently " rebirth" that Whitman and the board promised. And this after Whitman won bonuses and options worth $15.4 million even while the company missed its financial targets, according to Bloomberg.

The world has not changed that much in the last year, and HP has not done anything so extraordinary on the product, innovation or marketing front that it changed the rules of the game. The sad thing is that what seemed to be a desperate but necessary move then is likely still needed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why HP may owe an apology to ex-CEO Leo Apotheker

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Commentary (MoneyWatch) Hewlett-Packard ( HPQ) has been blaming one thing after another for its poor performance. It hired director Meg Whitman as a CEO replacement for fired Leo Apotheker, a main scapegoat originally hired to replace fired Mark Hurd who was hired to replace fired Carly Fiorina. Corporate politics can be so complicated.

# data[].attributes.body
A good management control system stimulates action by spotting the significant variations from the original plan and highlighting them for the people who can set things right.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
1. See H. Koontz, C. O'Donnell, and H. Weihrich. Management, 7th ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1980). p. 722.

2. See W. D. Brinckloe and M. T. Coughlin, Managing Organizations (Encino, CA: Glencoe Press. 1977). p. 298.

3. See P. F. Drucker. Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices (New York: Harper & Row. 1974). p. 497.

4. A recent summary of many of the findings in this area (illustrating such cognitive limitations as conservative revision of prior subjective probabilities when new information is provided. and the use of simplifying decision-making heuristics when faced with complex problems) is provided by W. F. Wright, "Cognitive Information Processing Biases: Implications for Producers and Users of Financial Information," Decision Sciences (April 1980): 284-298.

5. A similar scheme is presented in W. G. Ouchi, "A Conceptual Framework for the Design of Organizational Control Mechanisms," Management Science (September 1979): 833-848.

6. See H. Klein, "At Harley-Davidson, Life without AMF Is Upbeat but Full of Financial Problems," Wall Street Journal. 13 April 1982, p. 37.

7. See N. Babchukand W. J. Goode. "Work Incentives in a Self-Determined Group," American Sociological Review (1951): 679-687.

8. For a summary of criticisms of return-an-investment (ROI) measures of performance, see J. Dearden, "The Case against ROI Control," Harvard Business Review, May-June 1969, pp. 124-135.

9. See D. Mitchell. Control without Bureaucracy (London: McGraw-Hill Book Company Limited, 1979), p. 6.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
After strategies are set and plans are made, management's primary task is to ensure that these plans are carried out.

# data[].attributes.body
"As a manager in a company, you must find ways to motivate your employees in order to encourage productivity and ensure job satisfaction."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Is Management Leadership's Role in Motivating Employees?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As a manager in a company, you must find ways to motivate your employees in order to encourage productivity and ensure job satisfaction. A manager cannot force an employee to be successful at his ...

# data[].attributes.body
Talks about removing waste from the manufacturing process.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Discussing the Benefits of Production Control

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Manufacturing companies use quality assurance programs to gain a competitive advantage in the marketplace and reduce defect rates on the production line. Production control is a critical part of such programs, because it aims to remove waste from manufacturing processes through planning and organizing. Its many ...

# data[].attributes.body
Production control management.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Organizational Structure of the Production Control Manager

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An organizational structure defines how the various functions and activities, such as supervision, coordination and task allocation, are directed toward the achievement of a company's objectives. The ...

# data[].attributes.body
Great article about leaders and motivation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I must admit that I've wanted to write about motivation for a very long time but I wasn't sure how to approach this subject. Should I describe it extensively, or perhaps be concise and specific, whether to create a series of articles or maybe just one that would help my readers in their own research?

Today, I would like to share content that results from my experience and research in the area of theory of motivation. I hope that it will not only allow you to organize this area, but also be an incentive for further research.

Eventually, I decided that I'll write one longer article, so you can return to it as needed, without having to save a variety of links.

Introduction

Sooner or later every leader has to face the subject of motivation - whether it's because of the people they work with or themselves and their own development. It is a moment in which we begin to ask ourselves about cause and meaning of what we do. We wonder what is important to us, what is necessary and without what we can do. Then, we try to bring our consideration to a more general description, we look for some confirmation in science to make sure that our thoughts are right and allow us to make good decisions.

First models

Few years ago, my research allowed me to compare two models of the reality that surrounds me:

Maslow's hierarchy of needs tells us that people are driven by needs of different priority as presented in the pyramid below.

It means that, for example, first we want to meet deficiency needs such as security (appropriate remuneration), and then we think about higher level needs (ambitious project). I think that it is pretty well captured by a modern version of the pyramid 😉

Quite often presentation of the "new" pyramid evokes laughter, however there is more than a slight bit of truth in it. For IT people lack of access to the Internet is incredibly troublesome and causes genuine anxiety and decrease in motivation to work. By all means, physiological problems, according to Maslow's definition, have rather broad scope and an experienced leader should be able to recognize them in a team (e.g. health problems, fatigue, spending too many hours at work, sleep or eating problems, mood swings etc.). Owing to that a leader is aware of "lower" needs and importance of fulfilling them before he/she reaches out for motivational elements from the higher levels of the pyramid.

Examples of deficiency needs are: remuneration, job security, stable position of the company, understanding manager and entire team, lack of conflicts with people in a company or with a client.

To sum up - thanks to Maslow's theory we notice how many factors (and in which order) can affect our motivation. We also see that many of them may not be directly related to the very job or currently developed project. Also, don't forget that each team member can be in a different place on the pyramid and individual members' needs may vary.

On the other hand, McGregor shows two ways of thinking about employees within X and Y theory.

According to theory X people don't like working and shy away from it, whereas theory Y states that work is an integral part of our lives and people find an intrinsic motivation in themselves.

In practice, theory X approach can be characterised by lack of trust for employees, finding the guilty, control, penalties (employees will do poorly, or not at all, if a leader doesn't control them).

As stated in theory Y, employees are trusted and encouraged to take on more responsibility. It is assumed that they are ambitious, willing to work; they can make their own decisions, and most importantly - derive satisfaction from their work if you let them be productive and creative. For a leader it means that if we create appropriate work conditions, they will get satisfaction from their work and it will be a motivating factor.
A leader's task will be removing obstacles that hinder free and creative work among people.

Further research

My observation doesn't fully overlap those descriptions. I discovered that hierarchy of needs wasn't as unambiguous as Maslow's pyramid shows it. For instance, for some people remuneration was very important, whereas for others it was much less important (however, in theory, those people had similar competences and remuneration). There were people who really wanted to work in a quiet room, for others it was not important. Also, it turned out that not always needs from the bottom of the pyramid are more important than those from the top (each person defined differently what safety or belonging mean to them).

On the other hand, seeking the reflection of McGregor's model in my projects, I hadn't noticed anyone who would approach work according to the theory X. It didn't automatically mean that the theory Y worked flawlessly. Taking full responsibility for our decisions didn't come easily and not everyone was comfortable with this work model.

I decided to consider other theories and models that would more precisely coincide with my experience. Thanks to that I came across Herzberg's two-factor theory.

Herzberg noticed that we can distinguish two types of factors influencing our attitude towards work:

Factors that cause job satisfaction (intrinsic motivators) [Motivation]

Factors that cause job dissatisfaction (hygiene factors) [Demotivation]

Image source: Peakon.com

Herzberg showed that each factor can be in both groups to some degree (hygiene and motivation). It means that in practice people can see differently the same areas, e.g. remuneration. On the other hand, we can distinguish factors that quite substantially belong only to the one side of the axis. The last, most essential conclusion from the Herzberg's study tells us that we generally should perceive motivation through the prism of two separate groups - hygiene and motivation (intrinsic). Deficiencies in a given group may not be supplemented by elements of the opposite one . In order to maintain an appropriate overall level of motivation, it is necessary to provide proper level of each factor in both groups and consider lack of relation/link between those two groups. Therefore, if a hygiene factor has a negative effect (e.g. low remuneration) on the overall motivation, we won't improve it by boosting a factor from the intrinsic motivators group (e.g. assigning an ambitious task). Similarly, we can say we can't buy motivation (your work is boring, you lack motivation so I will pay you more). The key is that meeting hygiene factors doesn't increase the overall motivation, however not satisfying them may strongly demotivate. Continuing the example of remuneration - the lack of adequate salary strongly discourages, but the increase doesn't affect the long-term positive effect on motivation (and only reduces demotivation). By taking care of the hygiene factors, we create a space for factors increasing satisfaction from work.

An example - some years ago, during evaluation period, I decided to create a ranking (the team had over twenty members). In the questionnaire I asked every member to evaluate others in the team. On that basis I created a ranking and informed each person about the results during annual meetings. The intentions might not be bad, but the effect ... People who saw themselves better than in the questionnaire, felt very bad after seeing the results. In an instant, with my mistake, I demotivated some people.

To sum up - Herzberg's theory shows division into two groups of factors influencing motivation. A leader should provide an appropriate level in both groups having in mind that those they are independent.

Broader look on intrinsic motivation

The above-mentioned theories have shown me that the role of a leader is to identify and remove obstacles (on which as a leader I can have an impact). However, I missed the broader look on intrinsic motivation - if we provide people with right conditions, what else can affect their job satisfaction and may threaten maintenance of proper motivation.

Let me start with another example. I had a very good developer in my team, the moment the team started to grow dynamically a need for effective onboarding arose. I decided that mentioned person would take care of training within a certain technology. Obviously, I left him full freedom and assumed that everything would work. However, it turned out that the training went "so-so" or saying a bit more straight - not everyone feels comfortable in the role of a trainer, especially if they don't have any prior preparation. As a result, we came to the conclusion that presentation in front of a larger group is not a perfect solution, instead we implemented working in pairs. It worked perfectly. In place of using intrinsic motivation of a given person and let him/her do what they do best, I looked for extrinsic motivators and persuaded to prepare a training in a form that worked best for myself.

This kind of cases encouraged me to gain further knowledge that would help me in decision making process. Therefore, I came across two, quite similar, motivation theories - Pink's one and Self Determination Theory (SDT).

Self Determination Theory (SDT)

SDT is based on many studies carried out through years by Edward Deci and Richard Ryan. In their works they strongly focused on why people are motivated (what positively and negatively influences our motivation).

In their research, Deci and Ryan tested different forms of influencing motivation and it is worth paying attention to their key findings.

Can we buy motivation?

Let's imagine that we do something that makes us happy and we can say that we don't need any additional external incentives to do it. We find the urge to perform that task ourselves. Unexpectedly, someone starts to pay us PLN 100 for doing it. We think that why it should be something wrong - ultimately, we like doing it and someone pays for it. After some time, the same person offers PLN 200. Even better, we get more than before and we like our work so much. After few weeks we get to know that there is no more money and no one will pay us for our work. What will happen? Will we want to carry it out?

Studies based on similar scenarios showed clearly that motivation can't be bought (in a long-term). Presented example shows yet another mechanism - through rewards (expected ones, to which we accustom people) we can destroy their intrinsic motivation and build the extrinsic one - expected rewards.

Can we force people to become motivated?

Using rewards/penalties may work in a short term but in the long run it may lead to:

Competition and impairment of team work

Decrease of intrinsic motivation - if you reward 1 person out of 10, the remaining 9 always feel bad with it

Decline of the very work - we work just to win something or to avoid punishment

Decrease in quality and creativity - to get reward or avoid penalty we look for a shortcut

Cheating - to achieve reward or avoid penalty we can even resort to cheating

Additional monitoring - to control the system for action in accordance with the agreed rules

What affects motivation?

Deci and Ryan's studies showed that people have certain intrinsic needs and if they are met, people will be motivated. They identified three key areas:

In turn, Pink gives a similar version and talks about:

I think it is worth investigating those two models together as they pretty much overlap. Let's take a closer look at each of three key areas of self-motivation.

Autonomy is a natural human urge to have control over one's own life and make autonomous decisions. It means freedom of choice and results in an intrinsic pro activeness. Autonomy can be seen in four main dimensions:

Tasks (what we do)

Time (when we do)

Team (with whom we do)

Technique (how we do)

Every one of us sees those dimensions differently (for some people time is more important, for others, for example, technique).

Competence/Mastery should be understood not so much as being competent for the job, but as an inner conviction that we can perform a specific task - we have the necessary skills, but also take up a challenge and not everything will be easy and fun. We treat our skills as something infinite which can be constantly improved.

Relatedness/Purpose is giving meaning to our work. Each of us will want to see a greater sense of their work to know that it can serve others and can improve something. It is natural need to achieve something larger and more enduring than ourselves.

What does it mean for a leader?

In practice, findings in self-motivation quite clearly show leaders what they should do - not motivate externally but remove all obstacles that affect self-motivation. It is worth discerning how each team member understands autonomy, mastery and purpose, and organise the system/work practice of a team in a way it strengthens these areas. For example, at the beginning of many projects for external clients we organise a meeting, during which clients show us their vision of a product, a broader description of whom it will serve and thus we give meaning to the work of an entire team.

Coming back to the previous example with a very good developer - if I had discern areas of Mastery and Autonomy, we would probably have decided together that sharing knowledge while working in pairs is better than a presentation for a group (as a leader I made decision and took away autonomy).

A few words of summary

I believe that I managed to pass along key theories of motivation and their practical application. Summing up my previous deliberation, it can be said that firstly, we should determine and eliminate impact of factors affecting motivation (hygiene factors) for each person, and then, according to self-motivation rules, support intrinsic motivation. It is important to remember that everyone has different abilities and some people need greater autonomy, whereas others require more support from their leader.

I would also like to draw your attention to a certain trend we can observe in the IT industry. Today we can notice that due to the increasing demand for services in this sector, companies are outbidding each other in what they can offer to their future employees. This process, irrespectively to whether organisation has sincere intention or not, makes it more difficult for people to understand the situation. It can be observed that:

Every now and then someone offers us a new job

We get information about much better remuneration

There are new "facilities" that awaits us

As a result, we begin to lose concentration, we wonder whether in fact the present place of work is good enough, and whether we earn properly etc.

In my opinion there is a danger consisting in the fact that on the basis of all these signals we begin to create a picture-perfect job and it is very difficult to find such an ideal one in reality. Suddenly, it may be that the work, which previously gave us so much satisfaction, ceases to please us and we no longer know what we want (we exchanged intrinsic motivators to the extrinsic ones, which are increasingly difficult to meet).
I think it is worth noting that my findings concern the IT industry, to which I am directly related and I can assume that they may be true for other areas that require creative work.
***
This article was originally published on Paweł's blog http://www.okiemlidera.pl/.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5 theories of motivation a leader should know - Technical Blog - Future Processing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I must admit that I've wanted to write about motivation for a very long time but I wasn't sure how to approach this subject. Should I describe it extensively, or perhaps be concise and specific, whether to create a series of articles or maybe just one that would help my readers in their own research?

# data[].attributes.body
Toyota tries to fix their quality control problems.

# data[].attributes.body
Fayol Principles of Management in J. W. Marriott: Management Theory
Fayol's Principles 

Marriot Hotels, Australia is also following Fayol’s principles in a generalised manner all though there strict applicability and perfect alignment is not present. There are 14 principles of Fayol described as follows:-

Capture

(1) Division of work:- this is the first principle developed by Fayol. According to this principle management needs to divide the work among employees and define who would be responsible for which type of work. Like every organisation Marriot hotels, Australia also have a properly formed and structured hierarchy and there are well defined departments within the organisation like finances, HR and personnel management, marketing and sales, operations and business process, supply chain management, maintenance department and production planning department. There are various levels of employees present in the organisation and each employee is answerable to the senior level employee of the hierarchy. Each department is headed by its Head of the department and their role is generally restricted to the monitoring and supervision of the activities of other employees of the department.

(2) Delegation of Authority:- In Marriott different levels of employees and managers have different type of authorities and decision making capacity. A department head or a senior manager would have the decision making capacity of higher level and he can take decisions which might impact the working style or effectiveness of entire department. Similarly a country head would be having authority over business of entire country. Marriot Australia is following this principle of foyle.

(3) Discipline:- discipline is maintained by the organisation at all level of work process like number of working hours put in by each employee, conduct of employee towards other employees both males and females should be of highest standards and without any bias. There are many offences which are considered as zero tolerance offences like sexual harassment of an employee, corruption, racial discrimination etc on which Marriot takes very stern actions.

(4) Chain of commands:-Marriot have a hierarchy in its structure and chain of commands is top down where orders are dropped from upper level of employees to lower level of employees with a option of getting feedback in a constructive manner.

(5) Congenial workplace:- work place is congenial in nature and there is a general pleasantness in all work centres making them fit for working for all types of employees. Males, females, late adults, physically challenged employees etc. Marriot has designed itself in such manner that it is easily accessible for all type of employees.

(6) Interrelation between individual interests and common organisational goals:- In long term strategies and goals it is ensured that both organisation and employees are aligned with each other in Marriot, their personal growth and performance is linked with organisational growth and performance.

(7) Compensation package:- salaries and other perks are given to each employee according to their agreement.

(8) Centralisation:- head office of Marriot International in USA is the primary head quarter where major decisions are taken. Further country offices and other offices are delegated power thus power is de centralised as per need.

(9) Scalar chains:- Not fully Applicable in case of Marriot

(10) Order:- along with discipline in work a particular order of work is followed which is logical in nature and attains goals and objectives properly.

(11) Equity:- It is a listed company with many share holders thus they all have equity in this organisation.

(12) Job Guarantee:- job guarantee is associated with the performance, working ability and serving job roles satisfactorily.

(13) Initiatives:- new projects, new hotels, purchase of properties and their developments are all part of the initiatives taken by organisation. Change in HR policies, hiring etc all initiatives taken by organisation on a regular basis.

(14) Team-Spirit or Esprit de corps:- entire department works as a team to achieve departmental goals, further all departments collectively achieve the goals set by a particular unit and then units belonging to a country collectively fulfil the country level organisational goals as a team.

Management case analysis assignment help and case study research help in management assignments is available to students of Australia at Oz Assignment Help. Upload your assignment to get in touch directly.

# data[].attributes.body
Fayol Principles of Management in J. W. Marriott: Management Theory
Fayol's Principles 

Marriot Hotels, Australia is also following Fayol’s principles in a generalised manner all though there strict applicability and perfect alignment is not present. There are 14 principles of Fayol described as follows:-

Capture

(1) Division of work:- this is the first principle developed by Fayol. According to this principle management needs to divide the work among employees and define who would be responsible for which type of work. Like every organisation Marriot hotels, Australia also have a properly formed and structured hierarchy and there are well defined departments within the organisation like finances, HR and personnel management, marketing and sales, operations and business process, supply chain management, maintenance department and production planning department. There are various levels of employees present in the organisation and each employee is answerable to the senior level employee of the hierarchy. Each department is headed by its Head of the department and their role is generally restricted to the monitoring and supervision of the activities of other employees of the department.

(2) Delegation of Authority:- In Marriott different levels of employees and managers have different type of authorities and decision making capacity. A department head or a senior manager would have the decision making capacity of higher level and he can take decisions which might impact the working style or effectiveness of entire department. Similarly a country head would be having authority over business of entire country. Marriot Australia is following this principle of foyle.

(3) Discipline:- discipline is maintained by the organisation at all level of work process like number of working hours put in by each employee, conduct of employee towards other employees both males and females should be of highest standards and without any bias. There are many offences which are considered as zero tolerance offences like sexual harassment of an employee, corruption, racial discrimination etc on which Marriot takes very stern actions.

(4) Chain of commands:-Marriot have a hierarchy in its structure and chain of commands is top down where orders are dropped from upper level of employees to lower level of employees with a option of getting feedback in a constructive manner.

(5) Congenial workplace:- work place is congenial in nature and there is a general pleasantness in all work centres making them fit for working for all types of employees. Males, females, late adults, physically challenged employees etc. Marriot has designed itself in such manner that it is easily accessible for all type of employees.

(6) Interrelation between individual interests and common organisational goals:- In long term strategies and goals it is ensured that both organisation and employees are aligned with each other in Marriot, their personal growth and performance is linked with organisational growth and performance.

(7) Compensation package:- salaries and other perks are given to each employee according to their agreement.

(8) Centralisation:- head office of Marriot International in USA is the primary head quarter where major decisions are taken. Further country offices and other offices are delegated power thus power is de centralised as per need.

(9) Scalar chains:- Not fully Applicable in case of Marriot

(10) Order:- along with discipline in work a particular order of work is followed which is logical in nature and attains goals and objectives properly.

(11) Equity:- It is a listed company with many share holders thus they all have equity in this organisation.

(12) Job Guarantee:- job guarantee is associated with the performance, working ability and serving job roles satisfactorily.

(13) Initiatives:- new projects, new hotels, purchase of properties and their developments are all part of the initiatives taken by organisation. Change in HR policies, hiring etc all initiatives taken by organisation on a regular basis.

(14) Team-Spirit or Esprit de corps:- entire department works as a team to achieve departmental goals, further all departments collectively achieve the goals set by a particular unit and then units belonging to a country collectively fulfil the country level organisational goals as a team.

Management case analysis assignment help and case study research help in management assignments is available to students of Australia at Oz Assignment Help. Upload your assignment to get in touch directly.