Download to read offline
![[MUSIC PLAYING]
CRAIG MARSH: So the next thing that I wanted to discuss with
you which clearly
is central to this case is leadership. Now as you know the
challenge was in the
context of a global organization, a virtual organization. And
people who are not
directly employed by the company, they're contracting
employees, I've already
mentioned a little bit about engagement. Well, for me, one of
the critical
challenges was leadership. So this was in a sense one of my
biggest challenges,
to try and work out for myself what I felt effective leadership
was. And then to
understand how I would deliver that in the context of this
somewhat unique
structure that I was managing.
So the first thing I did is I decided that the context of the
remote organization, of
the remotely contracted people was in some ways only an
indirect problem. That
actually at the heart of leadership are some very basic ideas
which I felt should
be effective regardless of the particular situation that the
leadership has
demonstrated. And I was thinking of leadership in three very
particular ways. And
those ways are leadership as individual or leadership as
personal qualities or
characteristics. Leadership as a particular role. And leadership
as a structure. Let
me take first of all leadership as a role.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/runningheadvirtualworkforce1virtualworkforce2-221107074424-7cb70932/75/Running-head-VIRTUAL-WORKFORCE1VIRTUAL-WORKFORCE-2-docx-32-2048.jpg)
![Kahn (1990) approached the issue of employee engagement by
drawing on theory of
self and how different selves interact with the roles people need
to play at their
workplace. He postulated that “People can use varying degrees
of their selves,
physically, cognitively, and emotionally, in the roles they
perform, even as they maintain
the integrity of the boundaries between who they are and the
roles they occupy.
Presumably, the more people draw on their selves to perform
their roles within those
boundaries, the more stirring are their performances and the
more content they are with
the fit of the costumes they don” (p. 692). Kahn drew on
research from various
perspectives, such as interpersonal, group, intergroup, and
organizational research, and
combined them with the job-design perspective developed by
Hackman and Oldham
(1980). Kahn’s assumption was that as job design determined
the roles individuals need
to play within a work setting, it was a key determinant of the
“self” elicited from the
employees who play those roles. Job design was hypothesized to
be instrumental in
determining whether an employee will use an engaged or
disengaged self in role. He
defined the two opposite types of engagement as follows:
“Personal engagement [is]
the harnessing of organization members' selves to their work
roles; in engagement,
people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively,
and emotionally during
role performances. . . . Personal disengagement [is] the](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/runningheadvirtualworkforce1virtualworkforce2-221107074424-7cb70932/75/Running-head-VIRTUAL-WORKFORCE1VIRTUAL-WORKFORCE-2-docx-43-2048.jpg)
More Related Content
Similar to Running head VIRTUAL WORKFORCE1VIRTUAL WORKFORCE 2.docx
![Delivering Learning to a Dispersed and Virtual Workforce [Webinar 07.14.15]](https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/virtualworkforce071415h-150714135755-lva1-app6892-thumbnail.jpg?width=640&height=640&fit=bounds)
More from toltonkendal
![Elements of Critical Thinking [WLOs 2, 3, 4] [CLOs 2, 3, 4]P.docx](https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/elementsofcriticalthinkingwlos234clos234p-230108072818-bdaff573-thumbnail.jpg?width=640&height=640&fit=bounds)
Running head VIRTUAL WORKFORCE1VIRTUAL WORKFORCE 2.docx
- 1. Running head: VIRTUALWORKFORCE 1 VIRTUAL WORKFORCE 2 Virtual Workforce Name Institution Virtual Workforce Question 1 Dr Marsh has put into perspective some academic and practitioner viewpoints that could apply to his scenario. First, he is a researcher. He goes ahead to research how best he can solve the issues at hand. He understands that running the organization requires more than just the leadership in him. Other aspects need to be addressed. In his research, Dr Marsh goes ahead to find out that employee engagement is one of the core issues that he needs to understand. The more employees are satisfied with their work, the more they become engaged with their tasks. Their level of engagement determines the effectiveness of the employees in
- 2. their places ofwork. Employees fully engaging in their jobs can meet the levels of performance expected of them. Question 2 If I were in the doctor’s position, I could have used the Gallup’s seminal work. This is because his approach is very elaborate and not only does it deal with the theoretical research part of it but also goes empirical. Leadership within the organization requires that the management understands their employees both when they are at work and off duty. Gallup, on the other hand, has been able to introduce the three types of employees available at the places of work. These are; engaged, not-engaged, and the actively disengaged employees. How the employee behaves enables the manager to understand their level of engagement at their places of work (McKeen et al. 2003). It, therefore, becomes easy for the leadership of the organization to determine the performance level of their employees with ease. Question 3 Implementing effective communication both at the top leadership and at the ground level is the other strategy I could have used in dealing with the issues ahead. Communication is key to maintaining contact between the mother organization and the virtual employees who barely know who they are working for. There are better ways of ensuring effective communication in such an organization. Weekly reports are important. The management at the lower levels should engage their employees by asking them to provide them with reports that they later disburse to the top management. In this way, the management shall be able to determine the level of engagement between those working at the ground level and the mother organization. Performance shall also be effectively measured through communication. Employees need to be engaged in such communications as weekly reports. Whatever they communicate to the management reflects on how well they are performing their duties (Lojeski et al. 2008). The fact that convening a
- 3. meeting with theseemployees is next to impossible is made possible by the reports they write. These reports highlight what the employees feel should be improved by the company to enable them to work efficiently. References McKeen, J. D., & Smith, H. (2003). Making IT happen: critical issues in IT management. Wiley. Lojeski, K. S., & Reilly, R. R. (2008). Uniting the virtual workforce: Transforming leadership and innovation in the globally integrated enterprise (Vol. 2). John Wiley & Sons. Villarreal, M. C., Goldsman, D., & Keskinocak, P. (2015). Workforce Management and Scheduling Under Flexible Demand. Service Science, 7(4), 331-351. Running head: VIRTUAL WORKFORCE 1 Virtual Workforce Name Institution
- 4. Running head: VIRTUALWORKFORCE 1 Virtual Workforce Name Institution Sheet1StudioMOVIEG-SuccessPG SuccessPG-13 SuccessGPGPG-13RNRComp+Comp. MedComp LowStar A+/AStar MedStar InsignTech Effect+Tech. MediumTech LowSequel#Screens OriginalAdj. #of Scr<500500-10001000- 15001500-20002000-2800>2800BO Gross<1M1M-10M10M- 20M20M-40M40M-65M65M-100M100M-150M150M- 200M>200MFlopSuccessBuena vistaSpirited
- 5. away000100000010011000151100000$5,523,342010000000104 64- 4DimensionImpostor0000010000100100101870000100$6,114,2 3701000000010Fox search lightKissingjessica stein000000100100010010319100000$7,022,9400100000001020 th century foxKung Pow: Enter the fist0000010000100100102478000010$16,033,55600100000010S onyThe mothman prophecies0000010000101000102331000010$35,228,696000100 00010Warner Bros.The salton sea00000010001001001030100000$676,69810000000010Sony classicsSon of the bride00000010010001001014100000$624,15310000000010Sony classicsCrush000000100010010010117100000$1,080,07201000 000010Sony classicsMy wife is an actress00000010100001001038100000$1,054,76301000000010 USAThe kid stays in the picture00000010100001001056100000$1,434,43601000000010L ions GateState property00000010001001001075100000$2,099,71901000000010 Sony classicsThirteen conversations about one thing00000010100001001068100000$3,287,43501000000010Li ons GateThe cat's meow000001000010010010153100000$3,176,93601000000010 MiramaxItalian for beginners00000010001001001099100000$4,447,1860100000001 0MGM/UANo such thing (Monster)0000001001000100109100000$60,00610000000010Fi ne lineInvincible00000100001001001039100000$80,636100000000 10Magic lampAmy's orgasm0000001001000100106100000$119,66410000000010Son y classicsBeijing bicycle0000010000100100109100000$157,27910000000010US ANever again00000010100001001035100000$295,46810000000010Para
- 6. mount ClassicsThe triumphof love00000100001001001051100000$446,94210000000010Artist ic licenseHow to kill your neighbours dog0000001000100100106100000$48,56410000000010Miramax Stolen summer01001000010001001013100000$119,84110000000010Li ons GateThe weight of water00000010100001001027100000$102,62210000000010Inno vationsHansel and gretel01001000001001001059100000$100,47710000000010War ner Bros.A walk to remember0000100000100100102420000010$41,227,069000010 00001ParamountOrange county0000010000100100102317000010$41,032,915000010000 01Buena vistaSnow dogs0000100000100110002454000010$81,150,69200000100001 SonySpider man0010010010000101003876000001$403,706,3750000000010 120th century foxStar wars: Episode ||0000100010001010013161000001$310,426,98100000000101N ew lineLord of the rings: the two towers0010010001000101013622000001$308,821,30600000000 101Warner Bros.Harry potter and the chamber of secrets0000100010000101013682000001$258,898,10200000000 101IFC filmsMy big fat greek wedding0000100000100100102016000010$236,448,6970000000 0101Buena vistaSigns0010010001010000103453000001$227,959,55000000 000101New lineAustin powers in goldmember0010010010000100113613000001$213,079,163000 00000101SonyMen in black 20000010010001001013641000001$190,418,802000000010012 0th century foxIce age0000100001000110003345000001$176,387,40500000001001 MGM/UADie another day0000010010001000103377000001$158,626,84900000001001
- 7. Warner Bros.Scooby- doo1001000010000101003447000001$153,288,1820000000100 1Buena vistaLilo&Stitch0000100010000110003222000001$145,771,527 00000010001DreamworksCatch meif you can0000010001001000103225000001$144,962,12400000010001 SonyXXX0000010001001000103536000001$141,204,01600000 010001Buena vistaSanta clause 2: The mrs.clause1001000010000100113352000001$139,136,75900000 01000120th century foxMinority report0000010010010000103001000001$132,014,112000000100 01DreamworksThe ring0000010000100100102927000001$128,288,6310000001000 1Buena vistaSweet home alabama0000010000100100103313000001$126,868,6420000001 0001SonyMr.Deeds0000010010001000103239000001$126,203, 32000000010001UniversalThe bourne identity0000010010000100102663000010$121,468,9600000001 0001ParamountThe sum of all fears0000000110001000103230000001$118,471,320000000100 01Universal8 Mile0000001010000100102585000010$116,134,9150000001000 1DreamworksThe road to perdition0000001010001000102332000010$104,054,514000000 10001SonyThe panic room0000001001001000103119000001$95,308,3670000010000 1SonyMaid in manhattan0000010001000100103050000001$91,082,447000001 00001UniversalRed dragon0000001000101000103363000001$92,930,005000001000 01UniversalThe scorpion king0000010000100101003466000001$90,341,67000000100001 DimensionSpy kids 2: The island of lost dreams0000100001000101013307000001$85,570,368000001000 01New lineBlade 20000001001001001012707000010$81,645,15200000100001All
- 8. ianceMen with brooms000000100010010010207100000$4,239,7670100000001 0MPIEnigma000000100010010010115100000$4,298,329010000 00010Warner Bros.Adventuresof pluto nash0000010001001001002320000010$4,411,10201000000010 MGM/UAIgby goes down000000100010010010156100000$4,681,50301000000010S onySlackers0000001000100100101893000100$4,814,244010000 00010MGM/UAEvelyn010010000100010010137100000$1,341,1 5101000000010ArtisanRoger dodger00000010001001001061100000$1,260,76101000000010S ony classicsDogtown and z- boys00000100001001001070100000$1,293,29501000000010Mir amaxPinocchio0001000001000100101195001000$3,673,005010 00000010MiramaxRabbit proof fence010010001000010010144100000$2,982,69101000000010 MiramaxFull frontal000000100100100010214100000$2,506,44601000000010 MiramaxComedian000000100010010010244100000$2,744,2530 1000000010MiramaxPaid in full000000100010010010273100000$3,042,18801000000010So ny classicsSunshine state00000100100001001079100000$3,064,35601000000010Str andThe cockettes0000001010000100103100000$218,94710000000010Fi rst lookSkins00000010001001001013100000$238,98710000000010 Paramount classicsWho is cletis tout00000010100001001033100000$252,22710000000010Mira maxWaking up in reno000000100010010010197100000$261,60310000000010War ner Bros.Welcome to collinwood00000010001010001021100000$333,9761000000001 0IDPLittle secrets010010000100010010366100000$405,18210000000010I DP/FireworksThe
- 9. believer00000010100001001013100000$406,03510000000010I DP/FireworksThe man fromelysian fields00000010001001001050100000$1,431,62501000000010Ar tisanStanding in the shadows of motown01001000100001001059100000$1,475,20101000000010 ThinkfilmDangerous lives of altar boys000000101000100010125100000$1,779,28401000000010So ny classicsAuto focus000000100010010010461100000$2,062,06601000000010L ions GateSecretary000000100010010010149100000$3,984,60101000 000010DreamworksHollywood ending000001001000010010772010000$4,839,38301000000010 SonyFormula 510000001000101000101857000100$5,204,00701000000010Un iversalThe truth about charlie000001000010010010755010000$5,293,52501000000010 Universal focusThe pianist000000100100010010320100000$6,008,69101000000010 New marketReal women have curves000000010010010010163100000$5,677,04301000000010 Lions GateThe rules of attraction0000001000100100101437001000$6,525,76201000000 010MiramaxConfessions of a dangerous mind0000001001001000101776000100$6,332,67601000000010 MGM/UADeuces wild0000001010000100101480001000$6,044,61801000000010 Warner Bros.Femme fatale0000001010000100101066001000$6,592,10301000000010 Buena vistaMoonlight mile000001000010100010437100000$6,785,93901000000010So nyTrapped0000001000100100102227000010$6,916,8690100000 0010Buena vistaBig trouble0000010000100100101961000100$7,262,2880100000001 0Warner Bros.Death to smoochy0000001001001000102164000010$8,355,81501000000
- 10. 010MiramaxUndisputed0000001001001000101117001000$12,3 98,62800100000010New lineKnockaround guys0000001000101000101806000100$11,632,42000100000010 Warner Bros.Thepowerpuff girls movie0001000010000110002340000010$11,411,644001000000 10ParamountAbandon0000010000100100102347000010$10,719 ,36700100000010Buena vistaSorority boys0000001001000100101801000100$10,198,76600100000010 USAPossession000000100100010010619010000$10,103,647001 00000010New lineSimone0000010001001000101920000100$9,680,913010000 00010Buena vistaThe 25th hour000000100100010010495100000$9,586,59401000000010Li ons GateNarc000000100100010010822010000$8,535,636010000000 10Lions GateFrailty0000001000100100101497001000$13,103,82800100 000010DimensionWes Craven presentes: They0000001010000100101623000100$12,693,6210010000001 0New lineJason X0000001000100101001879000100$12,610,73100100000010So nyThe sweetest thing0000001000100100102670000010$24,430,2720001000001 0Sony8 crazy nights0000010010000110002503000010$23,443,124000100000 10MiramaxFrida000000100010010010794010000$22,832,70400 010000010Warner Bros.City by the sea0000001000101000102575000010$22,433,91500010000010P aramountMartin lawrence live: Runteldat000000100100100010774010000$19,184,01500100000 010Buena vistaTuck everlasting0100100000100100101460001000$19,136,92700100 000010MGM/UAHart's war0000001000110000102459000010$19,076,81500100000010 ParamountThe four fathers0000011000100100102187000010$18,306,166001000000
- 11. 10SonyPunch-Drunk love0000001000101000101293001000$17,791,03100100000010 MGM/UABowling for columbine000000100010010010248100000$17,565,3970010000 0010UniversalEmpire000000100100010010869010000$17,504,5 9500100000010Warner Bros.Eightlegged freaks0000010010000101002530000010$17,266,505001000000 10Fox SearchlightAntwone fisher0000010001001000101021001000$17,141,5210010000001 0Buena vistaThe country bears0001000010000101002553000010$16,998,9960010000001 0ParamountServing sara0000010001000100102174000010$16,930,18500100000010 Warner Bros.White oleander0000010000100100101510000100$16,346,1220010000 0010SonyHalf past dead0000010010001000102113000010$15,361,53700100000010 20th century foxSolaris0000010010001001002406000010$14,906,981001000 0001020th century foxLife or something like it0000010000100100102607000010$14,448,58900100000010Un iversalDragonfly0000010000101000102507000010$30,063,8050 001000001020th century foxSwimfan0000010000100100102860000001$28,563,92600010 000010MGMCrocodile hunter: collision course0100100010000100102525000010$28,399,192000100000 10Fox SearchlightBrown sugar0000010000100100101378001000$27,362,7120001000001 0Warner Bros.Blood work0000001001001000102525000010$26,199,5170001000001 0ArtisanJonah: A veggietales movie0001000000100110001625000100$25,571,351000100000 10New lineAll about the benjamins0000001001000100101519000100$25,482,931000100 0001020th century foxThe transporter0000010000100100102610000010$25,296,447000100
- 12. 00010UniversalThe emperor's club000001001000010010811010000$14,060,95000100000010F ox SearchlightThegood girl000000100100010010688010000$14,015,78600100000010S onyStealing harvard0000010000100100102366000010$13,973,53200100000 010ParamountThe hours000001000100100010548010000$13,868,75400100000010 ParamountHey Arnold! The movie0100100010000110002534000010$13,684,949001000000 10Warner Bros.Juwanna mann0000010010000100101325001000$13,571,8170010000001 0Warner Bros.Feardotcom0000001001000100102550000010$13,208,0230 0100000010New lineFriday after next0000001010000100101621000100$32,872,56600010000010 Warner Bros.Murder by numbers0000001000101000102663000010$31,874,86900010000 010Warner Bros.Analyze that0000001001001000102635000010$31,824,06300010000010 Fox SearchlightOne hour photo0000001001001000101332001000$31,597,1310001000001 0Warner Bros.Queen of the damned0000001000100101002511000010$30,307,80400010000 01020th century foxThe banger sisters0000001000100100102738000010$30,306,281000100000 10DimensionHalloween: Resurrection0000001010000100102094000010$30,259,6520001 0000010Buena vistaBad company0000010010001000102944000001$30,157,0160001000 0010ParamountWe were soldiers0000001001010001003143000001$78,120,19600000100 001Miramax40 Days and 40 nights0000001001000100102399000010$37,939,782000100000 10New lineAbout Schmidt0000001001000100101236001000$37,745,47500010000
- 13. 010ParamountClockstoppers0100100001000101002563000010$ 36,085,50100010000010Paramountk-19: The widowmaker0000010010010001002830000001$36,168,6770001 0000010Buena vistaHotchick0000010001001000102246000010$33,858,304000 10000010ParamountCrossroads000001000010010010238100001 0$37,188,66700010000010Warner Bros.Showtime0000010001010000102917000001$37,948,76200 010000010Buena vistaThe rookie1001000001000100102543000010$75,597,042000001000 01MGM/UABarbershop0000010000100100102176000010$75,07 4,95000000100001DreamworksSpirit:Stallion of the cimarron1001000000110003362000001$73,215,3100000010000 1Warner Bros.Divine secrets of ya ya sisterhood0000010010001000102507000010$69,586,544000001 00001Warner Bros.Insomnia0000001010010000102610000010$67,263,182000 00100001ParamountChanging lanes0000001000101000102642000010$66,790,2480000010000 1MiramaxGangs of newyork0000001001001000102340000010$65,377,8940000010 0001SonyStuart little 20000100010000110013282000001$64,736,11400001000001Dr eamworksThe time machine0000010001000101002958000001$56,684,81900001000 001ParamountJackass: The movie0000001000100101002532000010$64,267,897000010000 01Buena vistaThe count of monte cristo0000010000100100102211000010$54,228,1040000100000 120th century foxUnfaithful0000001010001000102624000010$52,752,475000 0100000120th century foxDrumline0000010001000100101837000100$54,493,5930000 1000001DreamworksThe tuxedo0000010000101000103022000001$50,189,179000010000 01Buena vistaReturn to
- 14. neverland1001000000100110002626000010$48,423,368000010 00001Buena vistaReign of fire0000010010000101002629000010$43,060,56600001000001 ParamountStartrek: Nemesis0000010001000110002711000010$42,692,17500001000 001MGM/UAWindtalkers0000001010001000102898000001$40, 911,8300000100000120th century foxHigh crimes0000010000101000102747000010$41,543,207000010000 01UniversalAbout a boy0000010010000100101756000100$40,566,65500001000001 UniversalBlue crush0000010001000100103015000001$40,118,4200000100000 1SonyMaster of disguise0000100001000100102568000010$40,363,53000001000 001Warner Bros.Collateral damage0000010000110000102824000001$40,048,33200001000 001SonyResident evil0000001001000101002528000010$39,532,30800010000010 SonyEnough0000010010000100102623000010$39,177,2150001 0000010UniversalUndercover brother0000010010000100102169000010$38,230,435000100000 105104102068
- 15. Leading a VirtualOrganization: Conclusions Leading a Virtual Organization: Conclusions Program Transcript CRAIG MARSH, PHD: Right. So what I'm going to do in this final section, is talk about some of the effects, or impacts, of those changes that I've described in the case, so far, and then talk a bit about were I to have my time again, what I would have done differently. Because of course, nothing is a complete success. And there are some things I think that didn't go so well as I originally intended, or had different consequences. So I'll talk a little bit about those. And then you can reflect on them yourself, and what you would have done in my situation. So one of the things we did, as I mentioned, was we measured our performance in a number of different ways. And I had some key indicators on my dashboard that I was looking at to see that things were moving in the right direction. So we measured the engagement of our customers. And we measured
- 16. them through something thatyou may be familiar with, a Net Promoter Score. And that simply means, when you ask them the question, would you promote us as an organization, and our product, outside to others, or not? The difference between those who say they would promote you, and those who wouldn't, can be expressed as a score. And of course, by and large, a positive score means that more people are prepared to promote you than those who aren't. And our Net Promoter Score increased from a negative score, to a score of plus 33, over the 18 months that this project was being implemented. So that was really, for me, a critical measure of our success, that things were moving in the right direction, and one I was very pleased with. Now what may be called somewhat more input measures, I think also moved in the right direction. So one is productivity of the staff that I was managing. Now one measure of productivity was, how many service interventions. Remember, they were contracted staff. So how many service interventions were they making over an annual period, over a year, at the beginning of this process, versus 18 months into this process? Now at the beginning of this process, actually, in this case, two years.
- 17. At the beginningof this process, they were making on average, something like 1.2 service interventions per year. So it was a very dispersed, very sparsely organized, and actually relatively disconnected organization. By the end of two years, that number had gone up to 5.2. So we had a far more engaged workforce than we had at the start of the process. So that for me, was also very satisfying, and a very large increase, and a very great success, I think, in that case. And the third thing that I measured, was one that I'm sure everyone will be familiar with, which is length of service. Now length of service is normally talked about in employee terms. These were not employees. But I was measuring how © 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. 1
- 18. Leading a VirtualOrganization: Conclusions long they were staying with us, as an example of their loyalty, and their engagement with us as an organization. So the length of service of these employees went up from, in the region of 1 and 1/2 years on average, at the start of this process. And over two years, that increased dramatically. Now over two years, it increased to 2.7 years length of service. When I left this organization, the end of last year, had it increased to over 4 years average length of service. So that was a dramatic increase. So those were three indicators that showed that on the whole, things were moving very much in the direction that I had intended What I will now do is talk about some of the things that perhaps went less well, or that I would want to do slightly differently, were I to go through the whole process
- 19. again. Because there wereelements that didn't work as well as I expected them. So the first element was, I mentioned my idea of having a vision or a galvanizing idea as a really critical part of the way we engage with our frontline service professionals. That, I think, proved very difficult. I had the idea. It was, I think, quite clearly communicated at the outset. I worked hard with my leadership structure to make sure they bought into the idea. We put it into our discussions. We talked a lot about how we would implement it, practically. Because having an idea is one thing. But actually doing it is something else. We had a lot of discussions when we first came up with the idea. And I think what happened, we didn't revisit it enough. It wasn't really at the forefront of everything that we did, in all of our communications. It really didn't operate as the galvanizing idea for all of our work, and all of our interactions with our service professionals. So I think what I would have preferred to have done, is to spend more time thinking, not just about the idea itself and how we communicated it, but how we sustained that vision, or that idea, over a much longer period, such that it affected everything that we did. So that's the first thing I think that I would have
- 20. reconsidered, if Ihad my time over again. I think the second thing that I would have reconsidered over that period, was the training and development of my front line leaders. I already mentioned to you that I felt that was a really critical component of the leadership challenge that I was faced. But I think there were some elements where people didn't quite get that coaching idea that I've referred to already. So I think I would have probably put more time and resources, and perhaps more measures in place, to make sure that those coaching ideals in my frontline staff, which I really believed in at the time, and still firmly believe in, were really integral created, and really translated into the behavior of those front line leaders. © 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. 2
- 21. Leading a VirtualOrganization: Conclusions I had some examples, where I think people were still being a little too directive, and a little too authoritarian, at the front end of the organization. And that's something that I would have liked to have corrected sooner. And the third thing is, I think touches on a really interesting principle, as a leader, about how you go about implementing and developing these things. And really, there are two slightly different aspects to it. So the first aspect of this, is when you're putting in place, particularly structures, almost by definition, they're very static, now particularly performance management structures or key performance indicators. What I would prefer to have done, is rather than building what I thought was an effective, but nevertheless static structure, is to build in a process of continuous improvement of that performance management structure, and of those KPIs.
- 22. Such that, wewere effectively doing what, in research terms, would be called AB testing. So we would try something. We would put it in place. We would get the feedback of our frontline staff. And then we would adjust and improve those indicators based on that feedback. So I didn't build in that process of continuous improvements and feedback, into the structures that I had created. And that meant that there were occasions when they became out of date. And I was seeing indicators that really were less useful, because of the fact that the organization had moved on. But the structure itself had stayed the same. And the other aspect of that third part, in terms of the performance indicators, is the involvement, to the extent possible, of the people who will be affected by them. And that is your frontline service professionals, and your employees. And I think the extent to which you can have those people build, work with you, to build create develop and manage those structures, the better they are in actually doing what you want them to do, which is to managing their performance. So to essentially own them, much more than if you simply impose them on. Now I did that to some extent, but I think I could have worked
- 23. harder to make surethat my people and my customers were involved in the very structures that I was putting in place themselves. That was I think something else that I learned from, and is also, if you like, a theory in use, which I had at the time. But I reflect on probably I didn't work on as much as I should have done. Leading a Virtual Organization: Conclusions Additional Content Attribution Music: © 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. 3 Leading a Virtual Organization: Conclusions Creative Support Services Los Angeles, CA Dimension Sound Effects Library Newnan, GA
- 24. Narrator Tracks MusicLibrary Stevens Point, WI Signature Music, Inc Chesterton, IN Studio Cutz Music Library Carrollton, TX © 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. 4
- 25. Leading a VirtualOrganization: Performance Management Leading a Virtual Organization: Performance Management Program Transcript CRAIG MARSH, PHD: So the third thing that I'd like to share with you is performance management. Now as you'll appreciate on a large, relatively large structure of around 500 individuals who are all over the world, one of my key challenges was really knowing how well they were doing. Now I did put in, as I mentioned, a leadership structure. So I was getting feedback from-- informal feedback and qualitative feedback from my leaders about how things were going generally. But that really wasn't enough. In order to provide a really excellent service across all of those global areas, what I really needed was something that allowed me quickly to capture how things were going in those contact areas, in those service interventions. And to be able to use those data for business decisions. And by the way, I'll mention that there are a number of issues with data driven or metrics driven performance management systems, which you'll probably appreciate. I mean, one of the critical ones is unintended consequences that you'll motivate behavior, or you'll incentivize behavior in a way
- 26. which is quite crude.And which way results actually, in people doing the opposite things to what you really want them to do. But they meet your metrics. So I was very much aware and I was somewhat skeptical about how effective performance metrics could be. So these were the sorts of things that I was thinking through when establishing this system that I really needed to know what was happening. So the first thing I did was to establish a system that would operate for me at, what I would call organizational level. Now, the organizational level system was essentially a dashboard. So I was able to collect an enormous amount of data from those service interventions of my front-line professionals. And what I did was to create a one page process with seven or eight of those key metrics summarized from right across the organization. That dashboard was used by me to keep up to date weekly on what was happening. I developed a system which was very straightforward. A traffic light system red, yellow, and green. So that once indicators moved to a certain level, I could see at a glance whether something was working really well, moving in the direction that I needed. Whether it was something that really where there was a problem, that needed immediate attention. Or whether there was something that looked like it
- 27. was, perhaps justtrending in the wrong direction and was going to need some attention fairly soon. And what we did was establish a process of executive review of that. So I was monitoring them weekly. But, three times a year we had the entire executive team in, where we would review those high level dashboards in order to see how the organization was progressing generally. And more importantly, to © 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. 1
- 28. Leading a VirtualOrganization: Performance Management make decisions which were based on some of those indicators that we were seeing. And the second part of the structure was where we were able to be a little bit more nimble or reactive to some of the indicators. And that was the business unit level. So in each service area, we were able to create a slightly more sophisticated report, more detailed report. Based on a similar sort of structure, based on the same data but where business unit leaders could actually use those data in response to them a little more quickly. Now what was critical about that response wasn't that when they saw something red that it was going wrong. Because, the way I phrased it to them was, that simply raises a question that you need to answer. It doesn't present the answer itself. And that's really critical in terms of managing these data driven performance systems. That when you see an indicator like that you don't think that something has gone wrong, but simply that it may be telling you that something is heading in the wrong direction, which you then need to investigate.
- 29. And the investigationreally, was the third part of the structure which is the individual level. So each of those service professionals, for every service intervention they made with our customers, they were able to see pretty quickly after the intervention a report which told them how they'd done in that particular circumstance. And that was comprised of data from the IT systems. It was comprised of data which was a collection of feedback from our customers. So we were able to quantify that feedback and put it into the system. And it actually was based on some of their own feedback, so they were able to contribute to it themselves. And of course what that information also provided was for those first-line leaders that I had appointed to be able to see how their teams were doing. And that was where, really, the final and critical part came in the performance management system. What I'd done was train these first-line leaders as coaches. And what that means is that you don't direct. When you see some data that seems to be going wrong in your team, what you do is you use that data for a coaching intervention. To investigate, first of all. See what's happening. Gain the feedback of that service professional. And then work with them to take actions and develop solutions to whatever it is that you overcome. So it's a combination. It's not
- 30. simply using thedata on its own. It's a combination of those data and the leadership, or coaching function, of those front line leaders. Leading a Virtual Organization: Performance Management Additional Content Attribution Music: © 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. 2 Leading a Virtual Organization: Performance Management Creative Support Services Los Angeles, CA Dimension Sound Effects Library Newnan, GA Narrator Tracks Music Library Stevens Point, WI Signature Music, Inc Chesterton, IN
- 31. Studio Cutz MusicLibrary Carrollton, TX © 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. 3 Leading a Virtual Organization: Leadership Leading a Virtual Organization: Leadership Program Transcript
- 32. [MUSIC PLAYING] CRAIG MARSH:So the next thing that I wanted to discuss with you which clearly is central to this case is leadership. Now as you know the challenge was in the context of a global organization, a virtual organization. And people who are not directly employed by the company, they're contracting employees, I've already mentioned a little bit about engagement. Well, for me, one of the critical challenges was leadership. So this was in a sense one of my biggest challenges, to try and work out for myself what I felt effective leadership was. And then to understand how I would deliver that in the context of this somewhat unique structure that I was managing. So the first thing I did is I decided that the context of the remote organization, of the remotely contracted people was in some ways only an indirect problem. That actually at the heart of leadership are some very basic ideas which I felt should be effective regardless of the particular situation that the leadership has demonstrated. And I was thinking of leadership in three very particular ways. And those ways are leadership as individual or leadership as personal qualities or characteristics. Leadership as a particular role. And leadership as a structure. Let me take first of all leadership as a role.
- 33. I felt thatin order to achieve effective engagement of my front line service professionals I really needed to concentrate very had on what I called operational or what might be termed first line of leadership. So in other words, the people who were actually leading the service professionals in their tasks. For me, an absolutely critical level of leadership in the organization. One that is regularly neglected. So one of the things I did was to make sure that I concentrated hard on finding, recruiting, training, and developing a card of operational leaderships on the ratio of about one leader to every 10 service professionals. And what I didn't do was make a classic error of organizations which is to promote people who are simply good at their jobs. Because the qualities of an effective leader at that level are actually very different from the qualities of an expert in a particular discipline or role, which I'm sure you'll appreciate from your own organizations. The second thing I did was think about leadership as a structure. Now I've already mentioned that I spent some time working on those as individuals. Well, I more or less bypassed the rest of my organizational structure. I had department heads and division heads. But what I did was concentrate on those leaders on recruiting them and treating them as one group or team. So I created structures
- 34. whereby they couldcompare notes. They could share resources. And they could develop their own card or feeling of teamwork, remember, across the world. So I didn't worry about where they were located. I didn't worry about necessarily where I recruited them from as long as they were effective in that particular role. © 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. 1 Leading a Virtual Organization: Leadership
- 35. The third aspectwas the personal aspect of leadership. And this is the one that's written about most, I think, in leadership studies. So let me spend a little bit of time on that because I think it's critical. So what was I actually looking for in developing amongst those first line leaders? And in a word that skill was coaching. Now coaching is both a process, a method for the way that you go about leading your people, but it's also a principle or a particular style or culture of leadership. And what I mean by that is coaching is about making sure that you're not telling people what to do, making sure that you're not directing or at least you're minimizing the direction. But what you are doing is making sure that your people themselves are the ones who are coming up with the solutions to the challenges and the problems that they're faced with every day. And that's culturally and, from a perspective of principle for me, a really critical aspect of effective leadership. And I simply decided that everything that I've read about cultures, about virtual organizations, about leadership itself boil down to that as being the most effective style of leadership that I needed. So I spent a lot of time making sure that my leaders were effective coaches. In order, as I've been saying earlier, to make sure the front line people were engaged and indulging in what I
- 36. described earlier as discretionaryeffort with our customers. Leading a Virtual Organization: Leadership Additional Content Attribution Music: Creative Support Services Los Angeles, CA Dimension Sound Effects Library Newnan, GA Narrator Tracks Music Library Stevens Point, WI Signature Music, Inc Chesterton, IN Studio Cutz Music Library Carrollton, TX © 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. 2
- 37. Leading a VirtualOrganization: Introduction Leading a Virtual Organization: Introduction Program Transcript NARRATOR: Dr. Craig Marsh is a business executive with over 25 years of experience in organizational leadership, development, and change across a number of industries. In this case study, Craig will present a real world leadership challenge based on his professional experience that will allow you to place yourself in the same situation and to explore in-depth some of the questions that inevitably arise. Would you have made the same decisions? What does the case tell you about the nature of the modern organization and its opportunities for value creation, as well as its limits? And what are the questions it raises for both senior and front-line leadership in the 21st century?
- 38. DR. CRAIG MARSH:Hello, I'm Dr. Craig Marsh. And I'm here to introduce you to a real leadership challenge that I was faced with four or five years ago. This leadership challenge was based on a structure, which was a virtual organization of an organization that was globally dispersed and an organization which I was taking over at the time. At the heart of this situation were two critical constructs. And by constructs I mean an idea that has different meanings to it where the meanings themselves aren't entirely understood or established. And that'll become important in a couple of minutes to you. Those two ideas, or constructs, were employee engagement and also the idea of performance management. Now, what's really important is that you read, in your classroom, the case study guide. What the case study guide will give you are my thoughts and my own research on these ideas that are going to present to you in the case. What it will also give you are some of the facts about the case because what I'm not going to do is spend my time talking to you about all of the details of the situation that I was presented with. So once you've read those, you'll get an idea of what I call my own theory and use. So what I do is not only do I lead organizations, but I've
- 39. also researched, read, andwritten about them. So I've developed my ideas and my constructs about what we mean by employee engagement, performance management, and leadership. And it's really important that you, as doctoral candidates, do the same such that when you're confronted with a situation you've formed your own ideas about what subjects such as leadership, performance management, and engagement really mean. Four years ago, I took over a business unit that consisted almost entirely of people working virtually. I had nearly 500 people working for me, who lived all over the world and worked remotely. They were all directly customer facing. And most significant, they were not employed directly by my organization, but were contracted to us, mostly on a part-time basis. © 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. 1
- 40. Leading a VirtualOrganization: Introduction To provide some context, our organization had grown rapidly over the previous four or five years and was confronting a classic consequence of that growth, a start-up culture now requiring scalable structures and processes to ensure that growth and service standards were maintained consistently. As a leader, I inherited very little structure other than some early attempts at putting in place performance indicators and some quality standards, as well as some established central units that supported me for monitoring service quality. I also had a small group of divisional directors reporting to me, each of whom were in charge of sub-unit of my structure with specific and differentiated customer value propositions.
- 41. So one ofmy biggest challenges was the very loose structure of contracted service professionals who provided the main value work to our customers. These service professionals were highly educated and experienced, multinational, and worked remotely from anywhere in the world. There were also mainly part-time and had a tenuous connection to the company. Legally, there were strict constraints on treating them as employees for fear of violating local tax laws. Because of this, it was very challenging to promote employee engagement and build trust across the team, accurately evaluate performance for all staff, and establish an appropriate leadership structure for this unique situation. I faced a number of questions and set myself the following three key challenges. First of all, how do I introduce a culture of engagement? Secondly, how do I create an effective process for performance management? And then, thirdly, how do I build a leadership structure appropriate for my particular circumstances? Leading a Virtual Organization: Introduction Additional Content Attribution Music: Creative Support Services Los Angeles, CA
- 42. Dimension Sound EffectsLibrary Newnan, GA Narrator Tracks Music Library Stevens Point, WI Signature Music, Inc Chesterton, IN Studio Cutz Music Library © 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. 2 Leading a Virtual Organization: Introduction Carrollton, TX © 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. 3 © 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 1 of 9 DDBA 8151 Case Study Guide Part 1: Theoretical Foundations Employee Engagement: Researchers’ Perspective
- 43. Kahn (1990) approachedthe issue of employee engagement by drawing on theory of self and how different selves interact with the roles people need to play at their workplace. He postulated that “People can use varying degrees of their selves, physically, cognitively, and emotionally, in the roles they perform, even as they maintain the integrity of the boundaries between who they are and the roles they occupy. Presumably, the more people draw on their selves to perform their roles within those boundaries, the more stirring are their performances and the more content they are with the fit of the costumes they don” (p. 692). Kahn drew on research from various perspectives, such as interpersonal, group, intergroup, and organizational research, and combined them with the job-design perspective developed by Hackman and Oldham (1980). Kahn’s assumption was that as job design determined the roles individuals need to play within a work setting, it was a key determinant of the “self” elicited from the employees who play those roles. Job design was hypothesized to be instrumental in determining whether an employee will use an engaged or disengaged self in role. He defined the two opposite types of engagement as follows: “Personal engagement [is] the harnessing of organization members' selves to their work roles; in engagement, people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performances. . . . Personal disengagement [is] the
- 44. uncoupling of selvesfrom work roles; in disengagement, people withdraw and defend themselves physically, cognitively, or emotionally during role performances” (1990, p. 694). Thus, according to Kahn, engagement is a psychological reaction to the job role people are required to play in their work, and it comprises three aspects of such a reaction: cognitive, affective, and behavioral. Rothbard (2001) had a more focused take on the issue of employee engagement and proposed two critical components that distinguish an engaged from a disengaged employee: attention and absorption. Specifically, attention was defined as “cognitive availability and the amount of time one spends thinking about a role”; while absorption “means being engrossed in a role and refers to the intensity of one’s focus on a role” (p. 656). This perspective lays more emphasis on the cognitive component of engagement and is more akin to the concept of psychological presence, dedicated focus on the job, and being away from any mental distractions that may lower job performance. Maslach, Schaufeli, and Leiter (2001) had a different take on the concept of engagement and viewed it as the positive end of a continuum, with job burnout on the negative end. According to them, as burnout is characterized by exhaustion, cynicism, and inefficacy, engagement is its polar opposite with characteristics of energy,
- 45. involvement, and efficacy.Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez- Roma, and Bakker (2002) went on to define engagement as “a positive, fulfilling, work- related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” (p. 74). To them, such a heightened © 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 2 of 9 state of vigor, dedication, and absorption is neither a momentary high, nor target specific, but a highly persistent and pervasive affective cognitive state. Thus, we see that besides the obvious similarities there are slight but extremely significant differences in which the above-mentioned researchers have conceptualized the construct of engagement. For Kahn (1990), job engagement is pretty role specific, and it is in fact the role that determines what type of self will be elicited (engaged versus disengaged). The state of engagement or burnout is pretty diffuse and long lasting (pervasive and not targeted) according to Schaufeli et al. (2002). However, they agree on the belief that bad job design may be the contributing factor for disengagement (according to Kahn) or burnout (according to Maslach et al., 2001). To compound the problem, various definitions of engagement do not take enough care
- 46. to distinguish theconcept from other similar constructs such as job involvement, job commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). There are questions regarding whether engagement is an attitude (having three components of cognition, affect, and behavior and similar to the concept of job satisfaction) or whether it is more akin to motivation (a heightened state of goal-directed behavior as in vigor). Practitioners do not have too much problem with the issue as long as the construct can be reliably used to predict and manage team or organizational performance. In the following section, we will see how some of the practitioners in this field have defined and used the construct of engagement. Employee Engagement: Practitioners’ Perspective When it comes to measuring and defining engagement, the foremost name in the practitioners’ world is Gallup, Inc., which developed the Gallup Workplace Audit (GWA, popularly known as the Q12), a questionnaire used to measure employee engagement. It comprises 12 questions, plus an overall satisfaction question making it a 13-item questionnaire. The questionnaire items were found to have a highly significant relation to unit-level measures of a company’s performance (Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002). Thus, rather than being driven by theory, Gallup’s approach has been more empirical. The items in the questionnaire are a measure of attitudinal
- 47. outcomes (satisfaction, loyalty, pride,customer service intent, and intent to stay with the company) and measure issues that are within the remit of a supervisor in charge of a given business unit. Gallup compiled rich data of employee surveys for over 30 years, and based on their understanding of employee behavior that had maximal impact on a firm’s performance, they defined engagement as “the individual’s involvement and satisfaction with as well as enthusiasm for work” (2002, p. 269). Based on their national survey of U.S. workers using their engagement questionnaire, Gallup put forward three types of employees (Krueger & Killham, 2006): connection to their company. They drive innovation and move the company forward. © 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 3 of 9 -engaged employees are essentially “checked out.” They are sleepwalking through their workday, putting time—but not energy or passion—into their work. they are busy acting out their unhappiness. Every day, these workers undermine what
- 48. their engaged coworkers accomplish. Perrin(2007) has also preferred to rely on survey data and define employee engagement in terms of the preferred characteristics that engaged employees exhibit as different from the non-engaged employees. Perrin highlights three key features of an engaged workforce: strategic goals, values, and their “fit” within it (also known as the “Think” sector) ffective attachment to the organization’s strategic goals, values, and their “fit” within it (also known as the “Feel” sector) in their role (i.e., willingness to invest discretionary effort, to “go the extra mile”) for the organization (also known as the “Act” sector) Perrin’s view of employee engagement is similar to that of Gallup in one major way: aspects of employee characteristics (cognitive, affective, or behavioral) that have been found to enhance the performance of a given business unit. Some other well-known research and consultancy organizations too have defined engagement along similar lines and emphasized the importance
- 49. of discretionary effort asthe key outcome or distinguishing feature of an engaged employee. The Institute of Employment Studies defined engagement as follows: A positive attitude held by the employee toward the organization and its values. An engaged employee is aware of business context, and works with colleagues to improve performance within the job for the benefit of the organization. The organization must work to develop and nurture engagement, which requires a two-way relationship between employer and employee. (Robinson, Perryman, & Hayday, 2004, p. 2) The Conference Board offers a synthesized definition that sees employee engagement as "a heightened emotional connection that an employee feels for his or her organization that influences him or her to exert greater discretionary effort to his or her work" (Gibbons, 2006, p. 5). This definition of engagement is derived from the common scale items used by its various clients to measure the engagement level of their employees. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (n.d.) holds similar views on employee engagement and refers to it as “a combination of commitment to the organization and its values, plus a willingness to help out colleagues (organizational
- 50. citizenship). It goesbeyond job satisfaction and is not simply motivation. Engagement is something the employee has to offer: it cannot be 'required' as part of the employment contract.” © 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 4 of 9 We may say that all the practitioner and consultancy views on engagement are largely driven from their respective survey data and are much more empirical when compared with how the researchers have approached the construct. The practitioners look for key differences in employee surveys between high- and low- performing business units, and the items that significantly related to performance form the core of what they call engagement. There are two major problems with this approach: 1. Most of these survey-based research tend to infer causality from their survey data in a way that their engagement items are presumed to “cause” performance, not merely correlated with it. However, there is very little in their research design to make such a strong assertion. 2. There is little “construct validity” behind these items being clubbed under a single name of engagement as the scale items are not embedded in
- 51. theory in thefirst place. So, though all the above-mentioned consultancies use slightly different items in their measures, they all label it as “engagement.” Performance Management Performance management has been regarded for several years now as a core management best practice (Osterman, 1994; Pfeffer, 1998). Den Hartog, Boselie, and Paauwe (2004) define it thus, making clear the relevance of an integrated approach to performance: “Performance management” has come to signify more than a list of singular practices aimed at measuring and adapting employee performance. Rather, it is seen as an integrated process in which managers work with their employees to set expectations, measure and review results, and reward performance, in order to improve employee performance, with the ultimate aim of positively affecting organizational success. (p. 556) It is remarkable, however, how little is still known of the effects of performance management techniques on the individual employee (Farndale & Kelliher, 2013). This has been a space often referred to in the literature over the years as the “black box” of
- 52. the HR/organization performancerelationship (Legge, 2001). One reason for this relative dearth of information is the limited amount of research directed at understanding implementation of performance management techniques (Guest, 2011). Boselie, Dietz, and Boon (2005) argued that most studies of the impact of performance management practice orient toward the macro, or “managerialist,” perspective, with a dearth of studies of the role of the immediate line manager or supervisor “in the enactment process” (p. 74). They recommended research oriented increasingly toward micro analyses which seek to understand in much greater depth “employees’ actual experiences of performance management” (2005, p. 82). It has also become increasingly recognized that the role of the first-line manager is crucial in successful implementation of performance management practices (Nehles et © 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 5 of 9 al., 2006) or “unlocking the black box” as these practices are increasingly delegated to line managers to implement in the modern organization (Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007). One such technique of performance management is performance appraisal, one in which first-line managers have a central role to play, and one
- 53. which is aconstant source of dissatisfaction among managers and employees, despite its widespread use (Dusterhoff, Cunningham, & MacGregor, 2014). Employees' perceptions of fairness and procedural justice play a key role in employee outcomes considered crucial to organization success, such as decision making (Goksoy & Alayoglu, 2013) and commitment and engagement (Cheng, 2014). The immediate supervisor of the employee is a key factor in the success of the process of performance appraisal, and a critical influence on employee perceptions of fairness and justice (Byrne et al., 2012; Sumelius et al., 2014). Part 2: Leading a Virtual Organization Dr. Craig Marsh is a business executive with over 25 years of experience in organizational leadership, development, and change, across a number of industries. In this case study, Craig will present a real-world leadership challenge based on his professional experience that will allow you to place yourself in the same situation and to explore in-depth some of the questions that inevitably arise: Would you have made the same decisions? What does the case tell you about the nature of the modern organization and its opportunities for value creation, as well as its limits? And what are the questions it raises for both senior and frontline leadership in the 21st century?
- 54. The Case Five yearsago, I took over a business unit that consisted almost entirely of people working virtually. I had nearly 500 people working for me who lived all over the world and worked remotely. They were all directly customer facing, and—most significantly— they were not employed directly by my organization, but were contracted to us, mostly on a part-time basis. To provide some context, our organization had grown rapidly over the previous 4–5 years and was confronting a classic consequence of that growth—a start-up culture now requiring scalable structures and processes to ensure that growth and service standards were maintained consistently. As a leader, I inherited very little structure, other than some early attempts at putting in place performance indicators and quality standards, as well as established central units for monitoring service quality. I also had a small group of divisional directors reporting to me, each of whom were in charge of a subunit of my structure with specific and differentiated customer value propositions. One of my biggest challenges, however, was the very “loose” structure of contracted service professionals who provided the main value work to our customers. These
- 55. © 2016 LaureateEducation, Inc. Page 6 of 9 service professionals were highly educated and experienced, multinational, working remotely from anywhere in the world, were mainly part time, and had a tenuous connection to the company. Legally, there were strict constraints on treating them as employees, for fear of violating local tax laws. Because of this, it was very challenging to promote employee engagement and build trust across the team, accurately evaluate performance for all staff, and establish an appropriate leadership structure for this unique situation. I faced a number of questions and set myself the following three key challenges: 1. How do I introduce a culture of engagement? 2. How do I create an effective process for performance management? 3. How do I build a leadership structure appropriate for my particular circumstances? © 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 7 of 9 References
- 56. Boselie, P., Dietz,G., & Boon, C. (2005). Commonalities and contradictions in HRM and performance research. Human Resource Management Journal, 15(3), 67–94. Byrne, Z. S., Pitts, V. E., Wilson, C. M., & Steiner, Z. J. (2012). Trusting the fair supervisor: The role of supervisory support in performance appraisals. Human Resource Management Journal, 22(2), 129–147. Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. (n.d.). CIPD—Championing better work and working lives. Retrieved from http://www.cipd.co.uk/ Cheng, S. Y. (2014). The mediating role of organizational justice on the relationship between administrative performance appraisal practices and organizational commitment. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(8), 1131–1148. Den Hartog, D. N., Boselie, P., & Paauwe, J. (2004). Performance management: A model and research agenda. Applied Psychology, 53(4), 556–
- 57. 569. Dusterhoff, C., Cunningham,J. B., & MacGregor, J. N. (2014). The effects of performance rating, leader–member exchange, perceived utility, and organizational justice on performance appraisal satisfaction: Applying a moral judgment perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 119(2), 265– 273. Farndale, E., & Kelliher, C. (2013). Implementing performance appraisal: Exploring the employee experience. Human Resource Management, 52(6), 879–897. Gibbons, J. M. (2006). Employee engagement: A review of current research and its implications. New York, NY: The Conference Board. Goksoy, A., & Alayoglu, N. (2013). The impact of perception of performance appraisal and distributive justice fairness on employees' ethical decision making in paternalist organizational culture. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(1), 57–79.
- 58. Guest, D. E.(2011). Human resource management and performance: Still searching for some answers. Human Resource Management Journal, 21(1), 3– 13. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA.: Addison- Wesley. © 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 8 of 9 Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business- unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268– 279. Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724. Krueger, J., & Killham, E. (2006). Why Dilbert is right. Gallup Management Journal, 9. Legge, K. (2001). Silver bullet or spent round? Assessing the meaning of the high
- 59. commitment management/performance relationship.Human Resource Management: A Critical Text, 2. Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 397–422. Nehles, A. C., van Riemsdijk, M., Kok, I., & Looise, J. K. (2006). Implementing human resource management successfully: A first-line management challenge. Management Revue, 256–273. Osterman, P. (1994). How common is workplace transformation and who adopts it? Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 47(2), 173–188. Perrin, T. (2007). Confronting myths: What really matters in attracting, engaging and retaining your workforce. Global Workforce Study. Pfeffer, J. (1998). The human equation: Building profits by putting people first. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press. Purcell, J., & Hutchinson, S. (2007). Front‐line managers as agents in the HRM‐
- 60. performance causal chain:theory, analysis and evidence. Human Resource Management Journal, 17(1), 3–20. Robinson, D., Perryman, S., & Hayday, S. (2004). The drivers of employee engagement. Institute of Employment Studies, Report 408, p. 2. Rothbard, N. P. (2001). Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and family roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(4), 655– 684. doi:10.2307/3094827 Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71–92. © 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 9 of 9 Sumelius, J., Björkman, I., Ehrnrooth, M., Mäkelä, K., & Smale, A. (2014). What determines employee perceptions of HRM process features? The case of
- 61. performance appraisal inMNC subsidiaries. Human Resource Management, 53(4), 569–592.