From time-to-time studies highlight that it is important for managers to understand that need to lead human beings with human centric approach. Wow… Is it where today’s leadership really stands? I hardly believe that managers are so stupid that they don’t understand this. I do not question the importance to repeat the message (some authors even argue to implement the role of a Chief Repeating Officer in organizations), however it is a self-deception to believe that it is sufficient to make a real change in the behaviours of managers. Most efforts fail mainly because they focus on reinforcing, repackaging the message and training the managers, and only a few of them focus on initiatives that drive real behavioural change.

Anyway, let me shed a light on a trend that is seriously underestimated, very seldom discussed and taken into consideration. Let’s come back to Gartner: they report that human leadership is characterized by three key components: 

• Authenticity: Leaders act with purpose and enable true self-expression, both for themselves and their teams. This means creating an environment where employees feel safe to express their true selves without fear of judgment. 
• Empathy: Leaders show genuine care, respect, and concern for their employees' well-being. This involves understanding and addressing the life needs of employees, not just their work needs. 
• Adaptability: Leaders provide flexibility and support that fits the unique needs of their team members. This includes managing tailored, flexible workflows that accommodate the diverse circumstances of employees. 

They have found that organizations that develop human leaders will find that their teams experience less turnover, higher engagement scores, and better overall well-being. Gartner's research found a significant increase in employee engagement among those who report to human leaders. Highly engaged employees can improve their team's performance by up to 27%.

It makes quite a great sense to push managers to employ more of the concept of human leadership. But we fail to recognize how much we overload managers. I am not to say that we do the wrong thing, however we must consider how difficult it is for the managers to change their behaviours. 

On one hand, HR departments often shift responsibilities onto managers, further increasing their workload. Research by the CIPD highlights that HR tasks such as recruitment, absence management, learning and development, and conflict management are frequently devolved to line managers. This devolution can lead to frustration and challenges for managers, who may lack the capacity, training, and support to effectively handle these additional responsibilities. 

Additionally, it's important to acknowledge that team members also place a significant burden on managers. The demands for flexibility, empathy, and authenticity require managers to constantly adapt and support their teams, which can lead to increased stress and potential burnout. 

Therefore, it's crucial for organizations to provide managers with the necessary resources and support to manage these challenges effectively. Gartner has identified three best practices for HR to develop more human leaders: 

1. Make the case for change: HR should leverage trusted sources, such as peers and employees, to make the business case for human leadership. Convening a group of impactful leaders who believe in and act on human leadership can help set new leadership expectations for the organization. 
2. Teach positive behaviours: HR should provide leaders with development and training on navigating sensitive situations and creating a psychologically safe environment. This helps leaders exhibit positive behaviours despite fear of scrutiny. 
3. Provide ongoing support: continuous support and reinforcement are crucial for leaders to internalize and practice human leadership behaviours. This includes establishing employee-leader mentorship groups and providing intensive preparation for high-stakes opportunities. 

Gallup reports that great leadership is defined not by authority alone, but by how much the people who follow leaders trust and support them. Keeping all this in mind, we may think of how we can ease the burden on the managers so that to make their behavioural change a bit easier. Following Gartner’s proposal to teach positive behaviours and provide ongoing support to managers gives us a chance to ease the burden on managers by making their team members capable to resolve more and more workplace challenges on their own, and require less support from their direct supervisor.

Individual contributors are the biggest population in any company, it is unrealistic to provide training, coaching and other developmental tools in such a large scale. However, it might make a good case for an on-the-job behavioural change app. Of course, no app can provide equal impact like any of the initiatives above, but we can achieve much better results with it than “giving almost nothing” to incrementally improve soft skills that help resolve their challenging situations a bit better, on-the-job.

To ease the burden that employees place on managers, the Act2Manage app offers practical, in-situ solutions for the most frequent workplace dilemmas. The app provides bite-sized, 3–5-minute micro-learning chunks that colleagues can access from their smartphones, tablets, or desktops, allowing them to stay engaged with their daily tasks and routines. Act2Manage supports colleagues in developing their skills and performance through gamification elements that make learning enjoyable and motivating. The app also offers follow-up commitments and reminders to ensure that knowledge is turned into concrete action steps.

By providing fast and easy access to practical help, Act2Manage empowers employees to solve workplace issues on their own, reducing the pressure on managers and fostering a more collaborative and efficient work environment.

We may say that most companies have vision and mission. It is truly beneficial to have them for several reasons: it helps define the customer base or selecting suppliers and represents the organization's identity. However, most of them are so complex that they are equivalent to understanding the space-time continuum. Or they may be simple but poorly executed.

One of my clients had a very cleverly worded, well-targeted, and easily understandable vision for their future. Despite this, employees were not doing things as outlined in the vision statement. A survey then revealed that employees did not understand the company's vision and did not see the direction it was heading.

Busy leaders tend to think that once they announce the direction, people have heard it, understood it, stood behind it, and executed it. They believe their employees are super-intelligent, understand what the leader says the first time. Sometimes they see the problem and they hire a management consultant who will preach about corporate missions, goals, and values, decorating all the corridors with useless posters about customers, quality, and teamwork.

We need to face it: commitment isn't that cheap!

The Gallup report provides a comprehensive guide for leaders to meet the evolving challenges of our time. It emphasizes the importance of understanding the needs of followers, knowing oneself, and comprehending the demands of the leadership role. By focusing on hope, trust, compassion, and stability, leaders can create a positive and lasting impact on their followers. Let’s explore some options the improve these four dimensions:

1. Hope: The Beacon of Leadership 

Hope emerges as the most critical need in the study, with 56% of attributes linked to influential leaders speaking to this theme. Hope inspires followers to envision a brighter future and motivates them to strive towards it. Leaders who instill hope can significantly reduce suffering and increase thriving among their followers.

2. Trust: The Foundation of Relationships 

Trust is the second most important need, closely following hope. Trustworthy leaders create an environment where followers feel safe and valued. This need is consistent across different countries, demographics, and types of leaders. Trust is the bedrock of any successful relationship, and leaders who prioritize building trust can foster loyalty and commitment among their followers.

3. Compassion: The Heart of Leadership 

Compassionate leaders understand and empathize with the needs and concerns of their followers. They create a supportive and nurturing environment where individuals feel cared for and respected. Compassion is a universal need that transcends cultural and geographical boundaries. Leaders who demonstrate compassion can build strong, positive relationships with their followers.

4. Stability: The Anchor in Turbulent Times 

Stability is the fourth primary need identified in the report. In times of uncertainty and change, followers look to their leaders for stability and reassurance. Leaders who provide a sense of stability can help their followers navigate challenges and maintain a sense of balance. Stability is essential for fostering a productive and harmonious environment.

And let me add a 5th element!

The Power of Follow-Up: 

Leaders may improve their communication about the company’s future, but it is important to make employees feel they really mean it. The good news is that there is a very simple remedy for this problem: follow-up. After communicating the vision, make sure that people understood it. Talk to them (instead of sending emails) to see if they agree with it, whether they have questions, need some more clarification, ask for their help in execution (e.g., which channels and how to communicate) to ensure they are committed. You can build trust them by asking for their help, you can show compassion to reflect to their concerns and provide stability by following-up on the most important thing. 

You are right, follow-up takes more time, but keep in mind that the effort you put in will strongly correlate to the results you can expect.

Pedig a legtöbb cég azért elég sok adattal rendelkezik; így az, hogy megvizsgálják, hol és hogyan dolgoznak hatékonyan a kollégák és mennyit teljesítenek vagy termelnek, kihúzhatná a méregfogát egy egyébként hiedelem-, és preferencia-alapú, anekdotikus vitának. 

A Forbes (Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic) egyik gyűjtéséből hoznék ide néhány elfogult, szubjektív véleményt, melyeket a leggyakrabban hallok vezetőkkel, HR-es kollégákkal váló beszélgetéseim során.

A szervezeti kultúra szempontjából fontos a jelenlét

Sok HR vezető úgy gondolja, hogy a személyes jelenlét erősíti a cégkultúrát, növeli a munkatársak elkötelezettségét, lojalitását és segíti a megtartásukat. Az irodában jelenlévő kollégák ugyanis korlátlanul mártózhatnak meg a cég értékeinek jacuzzijában, felszippanthatják céges normák bódító csíkját és az informális interakciók vadasparkjában andalogva emelkedik az összetartozás érzése. 

Mindezek azt feltételezik, hogy az irodában való jelenlét:

• A személyes interakciók következtében javítja a morált.
• A közös élmények révén erősíti a csapatkohéziót és a szervezeti értékeket. 
• Lehetőségeket teremt a spontán mentorálásra és problémamegoldásra a spontán interakciók során. 
• Segít újraépíteni az elkötelezettséget azok számára, akik esetleg elszigeteltnek érzik magukat. 

Akár lehet ezekben némi igazság, azonban felmerülnek kérdőjelek is:

• A vállalati kultúra nem feltétlenül függ a fizikai tértől. A Gartner elemzése szerint például a fizikai közelségnek zéró a hatása a vállalati kultúrához való kapcsolódásra. 
• Az alkalmazottak olyan környezetbe történő kényszerítése, amely nem illeszkedik a személyes munkastílusukhoz, csökkentheti az elégedettséget, árthat a morálnak és kirekesztő lehet. 
• A Gallup adatai azt mutatják, hogy az elkötelezettséget és a teljesítményt leginkább nem az határozza meg, hogy hol dolgoznak az emberek, hanem a közvetlen vezetők minősége. 

Javul az együttműködés és a csapatmunka

Gyakran hallani azt az érvet, hogy a személyes munka megkönnyíti az együttműködést, csökkenti a virtuális találkozók szervezésének nehézségeit és lehetővé teszi az informális ötletelést.

Ráadásul: 

• Növeli az innováció valószínűségét. 
• Megkönnyíti a csapatok számára a gyors iterációt és a valós idejű visszajelzést. 
• Erősíti az interperszonális kapcsolatokat, amelyek javíthatják a csapatmunkát.  

Azonban van ennek hátránya is:

• Az együttműködés távolról is lehet hatékony a megfelelő eszközökkel és gyakorlatokkal. 
• Azt feltételezzük, hogy minden munka igényli az együttműködést. Valójában a problémamegoldást, analitikus gondolkodást és az elmélyülést igénylő feladatok vagy a konferenciahívások esetén jobb, ha nem vagyunk az irodában, kevesebb a zavaró körülmény. 

Könnyebb ellenőrizni, mit csinálnak a kollégák

Sok vezető számára nehézséget okoz a teljesítmény értékelése, ezért inkább vizuális megfigyelésekre támaszkodik – például arra, hogy a kollégák az asztaluknál vannak-e –, hogy megítélje, folyik-e a munka.

Úgy érvelnek, hogy az emberek visszahozása az irodába:

• Lehetővé teszi számukra a valós idejű visszajelzést. 
• Csökkenti a bizonytalanságot a kollégák elérhetőségével kapcsolatban (ez persze csak akkor igaz, ha a vezető is épp akkor van az irodában, amikor az, akit épp ugráltatni szeretne). 
• Lehetővé teszi a kevésbé tapasztalt vezetők számára, hogy kontroll alatt érezzék a dolgokat. 
• Igazságosabb lehetőség, mint néhány embernek megengedni, hogy otthonról dolgozzon. 

De úgy tűnik ezek többnyire illúziók:

• Jól hangzik a valós idejű visszajelzés elméleti lehetősége, csak a gyakorlatban a munkavállalók alig 27%-a mondja azt, hogy rendszeresen kap. Ráadásul, mindössze 34%-uk ért teljes mértékben egyet azzal, hogy a főnöke tudja, hogy milyen projekteken feladatokon dolgoznak. 
• A jelenlétre való túlzott támaszkodás – különösen a kevésbé tapasztalt vezetők körében – mikromenedzsmenthez vezethet. 
• Az munkavállalók úgy érezhetik, hogy nem bíznak bennük, hogy maguktól is dolgoznak. 
• A vezetők hajlamosak pozitívabban értékelni azokat a kollégákat, akik az irodában vannak (közelségi torzítás -proximity bias) 
• A hibrid környezetben dolgozó vezetők gyakrabban alkalmazzák a vezetői jógyakorlatokat, mint a teljes időben irodában dolgozók. 
• Épp az okoz problémát, hogy az otthoni munkavégzésre juttatásként tekintenek a vezetők és nem a munkaszervezés alternatív módjaként. 

Az irodabérlési költség-veszteség csökkentése

Sok vállalat hosszú távra bérli az irodáját, ami jelentős költségekkel jár. Mivel nem tudnak csökkenteni a költségen, ezért ragaszkodnak ahhoz, hogy a munkavállalók használják a teret – legalább ne tűnjön feleslegesnek.

Úgy vannak vele, hogy az emberek irodába visszaterelése:

• Javítja a meglévő ingatlanbefektetések megtérülését. 
• Hozzáférést biztosít az alkalmazottaknak az irodai szolgáltatásokhoz. 
• Az igazságosság érzetét teremti, ha mindenkitől elvárják a jelenlétet. 

Ugyanakkor érdemes azt is figyelembe venni, hogy:

• Egy korábbi pénzügyi döntés nem diktálhatja a munkarendet, ha az negatívan befolyásolja az munkavállalók produktivitását és jólétét, és üzleti hátrányokat jelenthet. 
• A kollégák úgy érezhetik, hogy csak azért ingáznak, hogy kompenzáljanak egy költséget; azaz a cég többre értékeli az ingatlanjait, mint a humán tőkéjét. 

Leépítés és megtartás eszköze

Bár valószínűleg sose vallják be, néhány vállalat az irodába való visszaterelést létszámcsökkentésre használja. A munkakörnyezet kevésbé rugalmassá tételével arra késztetik a kollégákat, hogy önként kilépjenek, csökkentve az elbocsátással járó költségeket.

Hasznos megközelítés lehet, mivel:

• Csökkenti a bérköltségeket anélkül, hogy leépítésekbe kellene bonyolódni. 
• Akik maradnak, hajlandóbbak lesznek betartani a szabályokat, javul a munkakultúra és az elkötelezettség.  

És mégis visszaüthet, mivel:

• A legjobb emberek elvesztéséhez vezethet és nem az alulteljesítők lépnek ki. 
• Ronthat a munkáltatói márkán, megnehezítve a jövőbeni toborzást. 
• Elriaszthatja azokat a tehetségeket, akik számára kiemelten fontos a munka-magánélet egyensúlya. 
• Ha a versenytársak nagyobb rugalmasságot kínálnak, elcsábíthatják a legjobb tehetségeket. 
• Az elkötelezettség és lojalitás látszatát keltheti, ugyanis akiknek nincs jobb alternatívája, jó katona mintájára, a munka „színlelésére” tesz erőfeszítést ahelyett, hogy eredményeket produkálna. 

Sok vállalat kénytelen volt engedélyezni a távmunkát a pandémia idején, még akkor is, ha soha nem hitt benne, nem támogatta igazán. Amint a külső nyomás enyhült, lelkesen igyekeznek visszatérni a korábbi módszereikhez (Status Quo bias). A hibrid munka elfogadása nem stratégiai döntés volt, hanem szükségszerűség. Egyszerűbbnek tűnik a működés azáltal, hogy megszűnik a hibrid csapatok kezelésének bonyolultsága; sokkal könnyebb egységes megközelítést alkalmazni, mint figyelembe venni az egyéni igényeket és a vezetők is megtarthatják a régóta fennálló nézeteiket a munkahelyi hatékonyságról.

Nem találom a logikát abban az elképzelésben, hogy azok a munkatársak, akiket a vezetők nem tartanak eléggé megbízhatónak, hogy hatékonyan dolgozzanak otthonról, valahogy majd hirtelen elkötelezettek és produktívak lesznek, ha visszakényszerítik őket az irodába. Ha ügyesebben tettetik, hogy elfoglaltak és dolgoznak, mint ahogyan a vezetőik a teljesítményüket, eredményeiket értékelni képesek, a főnökeik még egy kis ego-boostot is kaphatnak, amikor látják őket „elfoglaltan”, fókuszáltan és motiváltan bámulni a képernyőt, amikor elhaladnak az asztaluk mellett.

Ezzel együtt figyelmen kívül hagyjuk a megszerzett tanulságokat a termelékenységről és rugalmasságról, nehéz helyzetbe hozzuk azokat az kollégákat, akik az életüket a távoli munkára építették, ráadásul a bizalmatlanság árát is meg kell fizetnünk. Azok a vállalatok, melyek kiegyensúlyozottabb, rugalmasabb megközelítést alkalmaznak – az eredményeket helyezve előtérbe a jelenléttel szemben – nagyobb valószínűséggel tartják meg a tehetségeket és alakítanak ki egészséges munkakultúrát. Talán nem érdemes tovább rombolni az elkötelezettséget (eddig se volt túl rózsás) és a tehetségek elvesztését. Egy ideális világban a vezetők tudatosan mérnék a munkavállalók által szállított eredményeket és az általuk létrehozott értéket, feleslegessé téve annak a szükségességét, hogy olyan jelentéktelen részletek vizslatására kellene összpontosítaniuk, hogy hol dolgoznak az emberek.

Don't sweat it! You can still be an outstanding employer because there's one thing that matters more to employees than all these perks: self-esteem.

Recently, a friend of mine was invited for a job interview. The company had him complete two tests before they even asked any questions. Later in the interview, he was asked about his degree.

• Humanities - he replied. 
• Well, that's a peculiar breed - came the mocking response. 

The test is fine, but the way the interviewer treated him is not. I don't think an interviewer could afford to humiliate a candidate.

We all remember of some stories when we also treated colleagues or peers bad. We raised our voice, rolled eyes at their nonsenses, smirked smugly, or made sarcastic comments about suggestions to show how smart we were.

Some colleagues don't perform remarkably, some come up with downright lousy work. Some are not very smart or don't work hard. Some make big mistakes and some eventually deserve to be fired. Regardless of all this, any colleague or candidate - no matter their performance - deserves to be treated with respect. Eye-rolling, mocking, sarcasm, and ego fight distract the focus from the problem and put the other person in the spotlight and her self-esteem diminishes by the very minute.

Don't think that your employees feel valued and appreciated because of the salary, benefits, or opportunities they receive. Tangible benefits don't have this effect. In fact, if you treat them disrespectfully or condescendingly, no reward or career opportunity can restore the bad feeling they have.

My humanities friend summed up his experience quite aptly: "they finally gave me the job, but they didn't let me be proud of myself”.

The most important thing you can give your employees is not the job itself, but self-esteem. If they make a mistake, warn them privately, focus on how they can learn from it, and they will quickly forget the shame they initially felt. Make a fool of them in front of others, and they will never forget that feeling. They won't really learn from the mistake because all they remember is how you treated them.

So, next time you're thinking about how to be a better employer or a manager, remember that the key to your employees' hearts isn't just in their paychecks or perks. It's in how you make them feel about themselves. Give them a chance to self-esteem, and you'll not only have a happier, more motivated team, but you'll also create a workplace where everyone feels valued and respected. And who knows, you might even find that treating your employees with respect is like giving them a raise without spending a dime.

"Do you feel like you have a good job?" I asked. 

"Well, honestly, good is the last word I’d use.” he replied. 

"What kind of job would you consider good?" 

"I think a good job is one where you can make decent money and work little." 

"Hmmm... Do you know anyone who has such a job?" 

"You mean someone I know personally?" 

"Not necessarily. Let me rephrase: what kind of job allows you to make a lot of money with little effort?" 

“Influencers or celebs?” 

"Yeah, some of them get paid well and it seems they don't have to work too hard. Sounds like a dream job..." 

“Look, they must be satisfied with their jobs." 

"Well, it seems to me that many of them struggle with eating disorders, are constantly in scandals with their private relationships, drink, and do drugs. I don't know about you, but I've never looked at them as truly happy people." 

"Okay, maybe it's not a dream job after all. What do you think makes a job good?" 

"I don't think there's a dream job...” 

If we ask people who love what they do, they do not tell us how they have spotted “the dream job” in the listings. They’ll tell us instead that they had clicked to an ad of an average job, and they transformed it to a good one. 

If you prefer, you can make a shortcut and discover your strengths and unlock your potential and find fulfilment in your work with CliftonStrengths. This powerful tool helps you identify your unique strengths and provides insights on how to leverage them for success. Whether you're looking to improve your current job or find a new path, it can guide you towards a more satisfying and productive career.

“Anyway” I said to my young friend “if you don’t like what you do you have two choices: either you do something else or you like something else. :)

From what I’ve seen, organizations try to do everything they can to keep employees from searching for the next employer. For example, they roll out all sorts of financial incentive programs, offer attractive benefit packages, move to nice offices, introduce fruit days to try to keep their employees engaged and make them more productive.

But do these "carrot and stick" really work? Do they actually attract and keep the top performers? 

We must face the hard truth: the mainstream approaches failed to improve engagement and performance. Gallup has reported in 2023 that only 23% of the employees were actively engaged globally. I am not sure of your standards, but I would not consider this a high number.  We might raise a question: how much is it really important to employees whether the company offers daycare, allows personal use of the internet or provides free coffee? Not that these initiatives are invaluable, but data show that they won’t take you far on the engagement scale. Anyway, if these perks are inefficient, are there dominant drivers behind employee engagement? In fact, Gallup's research shows that 70% of employee engagement is determined solely by the manager. This means that the relationship between an employee and their manager is the single most significant factor influencing employee satisfaction, performance, and overall engagement. It may explain the low impact of providing a gym in the basement, organizing family days or offering stock options. They might drive the remaining 30%. 

You may argue that (internal or external) surveys show that employees like and prefer these options. I do not doubt it. They may like it, but they do not make them more engaged! The best chance to improve employee engagement is havingbetter people managers. And we make the problem even worse: most of the universal benefits companies provide to employees are not under the direct control of the manager—or at least she has marginal influence on them—, practically they can’t do much about them.

If you are a people manager and you feel that HR support is insufficient to do your job better you can try to excel in four key areas which you have direct control of: hiring team members, setting clear expectations, motivation, and development.

1. Acquiring the right people
   Start by defining the expectations for the role you’re hiring for. Study the top performers in similar roles to understand what drives their success. Pay attention to their natural talents, behaviour patterns, and fit to the team—these are often the best contributors to high performance.
   
   
2. Set clear and measurable goals
   Make your expectations crystal clear. The best is to align your approach with the metrics your company uses to execute its strategy. Together with your team members align these outcomes to their strengths to draw their natural talents to make positive and lasting change in their job responsibilities while challenging them to use their talents in new ways. The goals should be: specific, measurable, achievable, mutually beneficial for the company and the individual, and time-bound.
   
   
3. Motivate to improve performance
   Your team members might be more motivated at a time and less motivated at another. They may need your encouragement and support to stay engaged and make substantial progress. Try to figure out e.g. how do they prefer to be recognized? What factors motivate them to grow and achieve more? How can you individualize your approach recognizing them?
   
   
4. Develop along the way
   Ideally there is a gap between the goals and the capabilities of the team members, so it is important to focus on personal development. Help them to bridge the gap by developing their talents into strengths. You may ask your team members what skills they’d like to develop or what areas they want to improve in. You can help them find the right tasks, jobs, and career paths and create a sense of ownership and engagement in their growth.