K-State Research and Extension

“What’s the Culture of Your Organization – Is it always Safety First?”

by Justin W. Waggoner, beef systems specialist

The data tells us that agriculture is a high risk industry, where “near misses,” accidents and even fatalities unfortunately occur. What is the culture of your organization or business? Is employee safety at the forefront? I certainly hope so.
However if it is not, how do we change that and create a culture of safety? Some say that the safety culture within an organization starts with the organization’s leaders and trickles down. Other sources indicate that training has to be a continual and ongoing process to create an organizational culture of safety. These are both correct. However with safety, it is very easy to find examples of “here is how we do it when the boss isn’t looking” and examples of great people who had the proper training and still made a bad decision. In both of these situations, the formal leaders of the organization were engaged in the process and the employees had the proper training, so how can we make progress?

Leadership is an essential component of creating a safety culture, but the formal leaders within the organization are not the leaders who are likely the greatest influencers. Safety is an everyday, in the minute issue on most operations.
Thus, the informal leaders within the organization or business are those that can have the greatest impact in creating a culture of safety. Leading by example, in those in the minute situations, is critical. Who are the informal leaders in your organization? Do they exemplify the core values of your safety culture? Identifying and engaging informal leaders is an essential and powerful component of initiating any change within an organization.

“Maslow’s Hierarchy and the Modern Workplace”

by Chris Reinhardt, Feedlot Specialist

At the base of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, we strive to meet our physical and physiological needs, such as food, water, shelter, and safety and security. But very soon after these needs are met we have three levels which are very pertinent in the modern workplace.

1. Belonging. While the workplace may not be the most obvious source of our sense of belonging, many, for better or worse, derive their identity from their career. And others may simply not have a thriving social network or family for support. A healthy workplace, or at least one or more co-workers who are respectful, collegial, and compassionate can actually go a long way to fulfilling that role. With that need (at least partially) met, we move upward to…

2. Esteem. Again, there are many places from which we may derive our esteem, but the workplace can be a tremendous source of self-esteem for many. All too often, we focus on the ever-changing and evolving challenges extant in the workplace: budget cuts, interpersonal conflict, technological impediments, etc. What gets lost in the malaise of the daily grind is that we are, in fact, getting the job done. We are working, we are succeeding, we are producing. And each participant on the team has a hand in that ongoing success, and that needs to be acknowledged. The astute manager needs to intentionally prioritize acknowledgement, on a frequent and regular basis, not just after delivery of the big order or completion of the major project, but in the midst of the process, when tensions may be heightened or stressors may be greatest. This small effort by the team leader may go a long way to lifting morale, and providing that need of esteem. Although some people glean their self-esteem from tasks, others greatly benefit from personal recognition, no matter how small or private, of their value to the team. And after we feel that we belong to something greater than ourselves and something valuable, and once we feel that we have the esteem of knowing that we have contributed in a meaningful way to the success of the organization, team, or group to which we belong, we are on our way to the final rung of the ladder that is at the tip of Maslow’s hierarchy…

3. Self-actualization.

“Continuing Ed”

by Chris Reinhardt, feedlot specialist

The day we choose to quit learning new things is the day we should ride off into the sunset, either literally or figuratively. We should want to be, and we should want to employ, eager lifelong learners. People who are eager to learn new skills and concepts are a near guarantee that the organization will continue to grow and improve in all areas of the business and even in its appreciation of its own culture.

If we’ve been successful in attracting this type of person into our organization, we probably don’t need to stimulate their desire to learn new things; instead, the challenge is to continually strive to provide meaningful learning opportunities for those individuals.

There are two general types of training to consider: professional development (job duty-specific training), and personal development (which may or may not be skills and ideas which are directly or even indirectly applicable to the individual’s specific job duties.)

Most organizations are willing to provide, and some are proactive in providing, professional development opportunities. However, it is more difficult for many organizations to justify personal development as a company-funded benefit.

One way to think about professional development, especially for the individual who is an eager student of new information, is as a type of “insurance”. Health insurance (personal and family health benefits, not workers’ compensation) really doesn’t have a direct benefit to the organization. Instead, health insurance benefits are a form of compensation not directly tied to salary and bonuses.

For the individual who is constantly seeking opportunities to improve, company sponsored opportunities for personal development can be a form of indirect compensation. But on another level, if the nature of the personal development training can be of benefit both at the personal level and the professional context as well, there is a chance for the company to benefit from the training two-fold: the individual feels cared for on a personal level by the organization; but the organization also in turn receives a more skilled person, whose skills can be perpetually improved over time through various training opportunities.

The end goal should be to keep valuable individuals engaged in their job and satisfied with their role in the organization. Personal and professional development may be very simple, inexpensive, and effective ways to both improve the value of the individual to the organization, and to increase the satisfaction of the individual within their role in the organization.

“Define Quality”

by Chris Reinhardt, feedlot specialist

What makes a quality employee and team mate? Work ethic, intelligence, and integrity would likely all come to mind for most of us. But what about how a person contributes to the workplace environment? Mentoring of newer or younger team mates? How about creative problem solving skills? Any others?

I was recently asked to serve as a work reference for a colleague and was forced to consider all the many ways this person contributes to our organization. This provided me with an opportunity to define, or re-define, what it means to be a “quality employee”.

This person in question has all the “tangibles”, but also all of the “intangibles” as well. This person is what my baseball-loving friend would call “a five-tool player: can run, can field, has a good arm, and can hit for both average and for power.”

Billionaire business tycoon Warren Buffet is quoted as saying something to the effect of, “When hiring we look for integrity, intelligence, and work ethic. But if they don’t have integrity, we hope they’re also stupid and lazy or else they’ll rob us blind!” I guess the point is, as much as we all want to have 5-tool players, integrity may be the single greatest asset for an employee to possess. If there’s integrity, a person who lacks experience can be taught, and even a person who may not be intelligent can be taught some useful skills.

People with a high level of integrity do their best to get their job done to the best of their ability, but they also look for additional ways to contribute. They go outside their job duties to look for ways to make the organization better. They intentionally strive to make those around them better at their job and happier in the workplace and in their personal life.

In short, the high-integrity person is worth more to the organization than we can probably afford to pay them. If we have one, we need to hold on tight; they just don’t come along every day.

“Teaching”

by Chris Reinhardt, feedlot specialist

“There’s no leadership without teaching,” said a speaker at a conference I recently attended. And at the time it felt like one of those sayings that at once seems obvious and profound at the same time. But the more I unpacked that statement, I decided it wasn’t obvious at all, and yet needs to be internalized by all managers.

How rarely do the management books and pamphlets and websites discuss the teaching element of management. But at its very core, that’s exactly what management needs to be about.

We talk about managing budgets and line items and forecasting and development, but how intentional are we as managers taking our teaching role? If you’ve accepted the role of manager, then you are also both a mentor and a teacher, and there is a hefty responsibility that goes with both of those.

So hefty in fact, many simply shirk the responsibility and ignore this necessary function of their title and their office, because it’s “easy” to manage numbers and line items and budgets, but managing people is difficult. Teaching can be frustrating. “That’s not what I signed on for!” you exclaim. Wrong answer.

If you don’t actively and intentionally embrace the role of teacher, then you get what you deserve. You’ll have direct reports who either (a) don’t grow in their abilities and opportunities and will be incapable of growing the organization and changing with the fluid marketplace; or (b) they DO grow (through no contribution of yours) and then leave for a better opportunity, leaving you with only stunted, complacent, mediocre clock watchers.

And if that’s what you want, then you are just a manager, not a leader. Leaders lead, and to actively lead, you need to engage with your team members. And once you engage, at an intimate, face-to-face, heart-to-heart level, it will become abundantly clear to you what the people on your team need in order to develop and grow, and you will eagerly and desperately desire to fulfill those needs, because you know that intellectual development is exactly what stands between your organization and greatness.

It’s a fatal fallacy to say that leaders only want followers; real leaders want to build and develop new leaders who will carry the organization forward. That is the legacy of the real leader: the new leaders they have trained who follow in their path after they choose to step aside. If you refuse to teach and develop your people, your legacy will retire with you and your shadow will fade with the next sunrise.

“Poised for Success”

by Chris Reinhardt, feedlot specialist

Letting people go is probably every manager’s least favorite part of their job, including an OSHA inspection or an IRS audit. But it is a part of management of people and of teams; not every person will work out.

There are two (very) broad reasons for the person “not working out”: (1) the person did not live up to the expectations they had committed to in the categories of work ethic, intellect, or integrity; or (2) the person did not have the skill set required to do the job that was asked of them.

Any time a person does not fulfill the expectations of management, a good portion of the blame for that failure should be borne by the manager. However, if the person is let go for above reason (1), a portion of the blame should fall on the manager for not identifying the deficiencies during the interview process but a portion also falls on the person being let go due to not living up to the expectations of the job as communicated upon initiation of the hiring process. If the person is let go for reason (2), then there is a different cause.

We often quote or paraphrase the message of the book “Good to Great” by Jim Collins when we say, “Let’s get the right people on the bus and let them drive us to greatness.” And this often means finding good, intelligent, ambitious, talented, hard-working people and finding them a home in our organization. However, this can on occasion backfire. If the new hire doesn’t perfectly fit the skill set needed for the open position, we must rapidly and adequately train them for the position, and we must install a plan to get that person into the best possible position for success, both of the individual and of the organization. Unfortunately, organizations which are inflexible fail in this latter element.

Organizations often lose good people because they haven’t found a way to modify the needs of the organization to fit the unique skills and passions of the person, and the person either fails to deliver the necessities of the job or simply loses interest in the job and the organization and looks elsewhere for opportunities which more closely align with their abilities and interests. This is a failure of management at one or both of two stages in the process.

Either the manager needs to identify that the person, regardless of how talented, does not now and will not in the future fit the organization, or the manager needs to create space for the person to express their abilities to help the organization in other ways not expressly delineated in the open position job description. There is no option C.

In short, either pass on the quality person available in favor of someone with more suitable skills, or make the position match the skills available. Or you will have more unwanted turnover and need to start all over again.

“Continual Training – Get on Board!”

by Chris Reinhardt, feedlot specialist

Unlike things like technology implementation, the geographical location of your business, or any economies of scale your business may have, superior management of your most precious assets—your PEOPLE—are difficult if not even impossible for your competitors to duplicate. This is because relationships are not created through some cookbook formula that can be taught in a management theory class or a self-help book. Healthy relationships and a positive, rewarding, energetic work place requires long-term intentionality and sacrifice.

One way we can enhance the belief by the team is a commitment by the organization to helping everyone be better at each aspect of their job duties.

We normally think of training as either (1) for new employees so they learn the rudiments of their new job, or (2) some safety or compliance training to appease the liability police. But that completely ignores the third possibility (3) that training could make your business run better, your employees more skilled and more content in their work, and your business more efficient and more profitable.

Research indicates that a culture which is committed to continual training results in greater return on equity vs. a company which is not so committed. This may be because (a) the actual training itself results in significantly improved worker productivity over time resulting in greater returns, or (b) the company which is committed to continual personal improvement may also be committed to other factors which result in greater worker satisfaction and reduced turnover. Reduced turnover—provided the workers are valuable, dedicated, and talented—will in itself result in improved efficiency by reducing the productivity lag caused by open positions and the continual re-starting of the process of workers learning to do their respective jobs.

Find ways to keep workers engaged and growing in their role. Their output (personal productivity) will increase, as will their input (contributions to overall team productivity and morale). Every investment you make which results in enhanced job satisfaction and employee retention will yield huge benefits long-term in the form of company efficiency and productivity.