The leadership practice of being visible, present, and listening openly to staff gets called lots of different things: purposeful rounding, rounding for influence, “walkabouts,” and MBWA (management by walking around). Sometimes I think we worry too much about what we call it instead of how we’re consistently doing it. Approaches vary significantly across and even within organizations, creating equally significant differences in effectiveness. Employee engagement surveys and other metrics can tell us a lot, but over 10 years ago I witnessed a much more immediate, qualitative way to see how employees really feel about our rounding. It still sticks with me today. During a major project we were leading for Press Ganey, I had the good fortune to meet and learn from Pedro Ceniza, RN,

Tediously written and refined learning objectives. Thoroughly researched, evidence-based content. Immediate post-workshop survey to quantify impact. All these standard practices for developing and delivering leadership training are common and sound. The problem is that they are almost exclusively focused on the quality of the content, not the ultimate outcome of the training. Said another way, traditional professional development focuses too much on what happens during a workshop and not enough on what comes after. With the goal of improving operating results and the work environment for both managers and staff, a more comprehensive approach puts as much time, creativity, and energy into what happens in the weeks and months following the workshops as before. Following are five ways to make that happen. Make content more

Are you old enough to remember when “junk mail” described all those flyers, catalogs, and solicitations we unloaded every day from our physical mailbox? Most of those pieces of mail were tossed aside, unopened, and trashed. Today, it’s our electronic mailboxes that are filled with “junk” every day. Some of those unsolicited messages from outside our organizations truly are junk. But many messages we write to communicate with employees are treated like “junk.” Translation: they never get read. “No one reads their emails!” It’s one of the most common complaints related to employee communication we hear from many managers. And we understand their frustration. We’ve all been conditioned to rely on email as the first line of defense in internal communication. The problem is that

Over the past decade, companies have made significant investments in employee well-being.  Gym memberships, mindfulness apps, expanded mental health benefits, resilience training – the programs are real, the intent is genuine, and the spending has been substantial.  The global corporate wellness market is now estimated at $50-70 billion, with employers spending hundreds of dollars per employee each year. Approximately 85% of large U.S. employers now offer some form of workplace wellness program. And yet, many organizations are questioning the return. Utilization is inconsistent, and impact has been difficult to measure.  Only about one in four employees actively engages with wellness offerings. In some cases, programs are being scaled back or abandoned altogether; almost one-third of employers report reducing investment in certain offerings, including fitness classes and

Ask healthcare leaders about accountability, and you’ll often get a pause or even a sigh before receiving an answer. Accountability has become synonymous with discipline, hard conversations, and the very real fear of losing a staff member the organization cannot afford to lose. This mindset alone tells us something important. The problem isn’t that healthcare leaders don’t care about holding employees accountability; it’s that we sometimes have a skewed view of what it should look like day-to-day – and what it costs when we avoid it. When compassion becomes avoidance Healthcare attracts people who are wired to help, which is one of its greatest strengths.  But that same instinct can undermine leadership when compassion becomes a reason to delay or avoid conversations related to performance.

For years, we’ve been told that research proves it takes 3-5 years to change an organization’s culture. Apparently, Curt Cignetti, head coach of the Indiana Hoosiers football team, didn’t get that memo. In nearly every interview I’ve seen during this record-breaking season, especially ones featuring Heisman Trophy-winning quarterback Fernando Mendoza, the team’s culture comes up more often than any other factor to explain how their unprecedented college sports miracle happened. My gut tells me that Curt Cignetti started changing the culture of IU football during his first 3-5 minutes – not years – on the Bloomington campus. Like college athletics, companies are complicated organisms, filled with mountains of rules and regulations, policies and procedures, and tried-and-true traditions that dictate how things get done. So, how

When staff engagement surveys roll in, one message is nearly universal: improve communication.  Too often, that leads to a flood of new emails or revamped intranet pages – well-intended but misguided fixes. What employees actually want isn’t more communication; it’s better communication. Following are five ways to rethink and retool internal communication. Ditch the sales pitch In written communication or major organization-wide meetings, most organizations can’t resist the temptation to tell staff how great the company is, including some version of the “people are our most important resource” line. Today’s employees will judge how great the company is or isn’t through their own experience on the job. Platitudes have never been very effective. Our current workforce may actually find them offensive if they reveal that

Across industries and organizations, contemporary workforce discussions often frame Baby Boomers, Gen Xers, Millennials, and Gen Z at odds with one another. Generational stereotypes – like Boomers struggling with technology, Millennials being entitled, or Gen Z requiring constant pats on the back – may provide entertainment, but they also reinforce a divisive narrative. The problem is not only the jokes. Social media platforms do more than just reflect generational conflict; they actively shape it. Headlines designed for engagement, such as “Why Gen Z is Over Millennials” or “How Boomers Wrecked the Economy,” subtly influence how we perceive and interact with colleagues from different generations. When leaders adopt these narratives, casually repeat them in meetings, or reference them in performance conversations – even unintentionally – they

Over $360 billion. That’s how much companies spend on leadership training according to TrainingIndustry.com and reported in Forbes. Approximately $160 billion of that total is spent in the U.S. alone. Yet in research from McKinsey, organizations report that most leadership development programs fail to deliver the desired results. With huge investments of both money and time, how can that be. The answer lies in how those dollars and hours are invested – and then supported – to improve performance. Feeling Good vs. Performing Better In medicine, some drugs may make a patient feel good about taking them, even if they don’t help them get better. In a 2017 study published in the peer-reviewed journal The BMJ, authors found that: “Most new oncology drugs authorized by

In their effort to boost employee engagement and retention, many organizations overlook one of their most powerful assets: empowered middle managers. When these leaders feel trusted and supported, it cascades to their teams.  And the impact is measurable. Teams led by empowered managers enjoy 79th percentile employee engagement, and 67% of employees say they’re more likely to go above and beyond as reported in Forbes (“The 6 Key Secrets to Increasing Empowerment in Your Team”). Contemporary leadership theory emphasizes empowerment – encouraging open dialogue, recognizing contributions, and extending trust.  But in real-world settings, something critical is often missing. Empowerment without resources is a hollow gesture. If managers aren’t given the time, training, support and validation to lead confidently, then autonomy becomes more of a burden