What comes to mind when you hear the word “sabotage?” Dark-cloaked spies lurking amongst shadowed enclaves?  James Bond detonating a strategically placed explosive device, just seconds after making his escape from a secured facility?  Hackers introducing malicious content into the launch sequence codes of a nuclear missile?   Great for Hollywood, but a little farfetched for those of us in the everyday workplace.

Despite the unlikelihood of any of the above taking place in a workplace near you, many would be surprised to learn that sabotage is actually a fairly common occurrence in today’s workplace.

Sabotage?  In my Company?  No way!

The origins of the word “sabotage” are questionable, but most sources seem to point back to similar backgrounds.  In the 14^th-16^th centuries, French and Dutch workers found that they could stop the mills and textile looms by throwing a wooden shoe—a “sabot”—into the cogs of the machinery.  Doing so would either shut down production completely, or would cause the cogs to break over time.  Therefore, a discontent worker could seek revenge by “sabotaging” a very expensive piece of machinery, thus shutting down production.

Pretty devious, right?  But does that happen today?

Sabotage can take two forms—active and passive sabotage.  To simplify these two terms, think of active sabotage as doing something you shouldn’t be doing which causes harm to the organization.  Passive sabotage is not doing something you should be doing, which thereby harms the organization.

For an amusing experience, take a look at the Simple Sabotage Field Manual, created in 1944 by the US Government Office of Strategic Services created in 1944.  As the precursor to the CIA, the Strategic Services Office created the manual to give ordinary citizens of other countries a guide that they could use to disrupt their countries’ wartime policies towards the US.  It’s interesting to see how so many of these concepts relate to active and passive sabotage in organizations today.

A few instructions from the 1944 Simple Sabotage Field Manual:

1. Managers and Supervisors—To lower morale and production, be pleasant to inefficient workers; give them undeserved promotions. Discriminate against efficient workers; complain unjustly about their work.
2. Employees—Work slowly. Think of ways to increase the number of movements needed to do your job: use a light hammer instead of a heavy one; try to make a small wrench do, instead of a big one.
3. Organizations and Conferences—When possible, refer all matters to committees, for “further study and consideration.” Attempt to make the committees as large and bureaucratic as possible. Hold conferences when there is more critical work to be done.
4. Telephone—At office, hotel, and local telephone switchboards, delay putting calls through, give out wrong numbers, cut people off “accidentally,” or forget to disconnect them so that the line cannot be used again.
5. Transportation—Make train travel as inconvenient as possible for enemy personnel. Issue two tickets for the same seat on a train in order to set up an “interesting” argument.

Humorous, but many of these forms of sabotage sound familiar—even today!

Engaged employees are actively contributing to the success of the organization.  Disengaged employees sabotage the organization’s progress.  Sometimes, this is active sabotage.  A disengaged employee may intentionally cause harm to the organization.  We find, however, that this is fairly uncommon: less than 4% of employees are actively disengaged, according to our DecisionWise research.

Quite common is the employee that commits “passive sabotage” in the organization.  These are those employees, for example, who may not report a quality concern when it’s noticed, go the extra mile for the customer, help in training the new guy, or remain attentive in meetings.  It may be the person who simply doesn’t seem to care about anything beyond doing what’s required, and then clocking out.  Our DecisionWise Employee Engagement research has found that roughly 28% of employees fit into this category.  They are those we refer to as the “Opportunity Group.”

“Sabotage” may seem like a harsh word to use, but it’s an appropriate one, nonetheless.  Merriam-Webster defines sabotage as “an act or process tending to hurt or to hamper.”  Wouldn’t, then, a disengaged employee fit this definition?

A turning point is a crucial or transformative shift in our ways of being and doing.  “Crucial” implies that this change is necessary, and is likely to influence future events or actions. “Transformative” suggests that the turning point alters the way we think about the world and our interactions with it.

Events or experiences that qualify as turning points typically have the following characteristics:

1. The event or experience wakes us up to a reality we have willfully or naïvely ignored.
2. Turning points create dissonance—the uncomfortable feeling that stems from holding conflicting attitudes and beliefs.and, most important…
3. Crucial turning points force us to see the world anew, or through a different lens.

A central theory of human nature is that each of us creates a life plan or script in early childhood.  Children are highly vulnerable to the messages from parents, teachers, and other role models.  These messages tell the individual who she is or who she should be.  Some messages are positive and growth enhancing; others are negative and growth inhibiting. In response to these messages, children (you and I) make a number of decisions that combine to form a life plan or script.  We may not be fully aware, though, that we are living a script.

This is where turning points come into play.  When we have experiences, or are presented with information that attempts to break the patterns of thoughts that make up the script, we have a choice to make: either lean into the new information or run away from it.

In coaching leaders, I find that the 360-degree feedback process can serve as a powerful turning point opportunity, dependent on how the individual reacts to the feedback.  In many cases, the leader—after receiving the feedback report—will quickly discount the data by using strategies such as blaming raters for giving inaccurate feedback, playing numbers games in the report, or writing off the whole process as a waste of time.

Related Blog: Using the SARA Model to Learn from 360-Degree Feedback

Leaders who use 360-degree feedback as a turning point take time to fully understand the perceptions of key stakeholders.  They avoid jumping to conclusions.  They follow up with raters after the survey to ask additional questions and get valuable insights and recommendations.  And, most importantly, they act as anthropologists—tenacious about understanding the perspective of others.

Based on my experiences in working with leaders who make significant changes, the term 360-degree feedback has taken on a whole new meaning.  Yes, the process allows the leader to see his or her effectiveness from multiple perspectives.  More important, however, is that often a leader who goes through the process goes on a journey and ends up back where he or she started, but with a completely different view of the world.

The words of T.S. Eliot fit beautifully here:

We shall not cease from exploring
And at the end of our exploration
We will return to where we started
And know the place for the first time.

Register for the webinar: Making 360 Feedback a Leadership Turning Point

Senior Executives

DecisionWise recently brought on a group of student interns from Brigham Young University to conduct a study of employee engagement best practices. Among other interesting conclusions, this study found that a significant portion of companies reported that senior executives would clearly buy into employee engagement initiatives if provided with an executive summary of the findings—including potential action items that would directly impact the bottom line.  The keys here?  Clear findings with clear recommendations for action.

Executive teams’ self-interests are similar across many organizations.  You will want to anticipate the answers to these potential questions when working with members of this team:

• What is driving engagement in our organization?
• How does engagement impact our bottom line?
• How do we measure up with competitors?
• What are my employees saying, and why does it matter?

Answering these questions in an executive summary is the most effective way to create buy-in with senior executives.  From the companies surveyed, one firm indicated that having an executive summary “made all the difference” in getting buy-in from the company’s senior management.  Other companies commented on the design of the executive summary, specifically mentioning the influence of displaying the top five drivers and the top five inhibitors of engagement in the firm.  I’ll ask again, are senior executives indifferent when it comes to employee engagement?  Definitely not—they just might not recognize the financial power engagement holds.

Managers

Managers, like senior executives, are concerned with the organization’s bottom line; however, managers also crave understanding of a company-wide vision for the engagement initiative.  Why does implementing cultural change matter?  Answering this question with rock-solid financial and operational figures and a concrete definition of your vision for the employee-engagement project will help you get buy-in from this group.  So, are managers actually close-minded?  No, they simply need help seeing “the big picture”—one that covers all departments, locations, and job levels in the organization.

Employees

Disengagement breeds disengagement.  Some studies report that disengaged employees annually cost firms $3,400 for every $10,000 of salary.  If an engagement initiative starts but does not succeed, engagement rates fall according to the following pattern:

• 33% of employees are engaged before any surveys are issued.
• 25% (↓ 8%) of employees are engaged if surveys are completed, but a firm does not create any action plans.
• 20% (↓ 5%) of employees are engaged if surveys are completed, action plans are made, but no follow-through is achieved.

Thus continues the vicious cycle, unless and until the engagement initiative is completed successfully.  Survey results indicate that working on action plans that can be accomplished more quickly and more early in the year help employees see immediate changes, thereby creating buy-in.  In our experience working with companies in over 60 countries, we’ve witnessed a very common trend: employees don’t want promises; they want action.  Are your employees really asking for too much?  Not at all.

If you’re experiencing some push-back from any of these groups as you prepare to roll out another employee-engagement and cultural-change program, try the above recommendations.

Have you experienced friction from different groups in your organization when trying to start employee-engagement surveys and cultural-change initiatives?  How have you responded to the skepticism?  Share your stories with us in the comments.

For some, distinguishing between the two tactics can be daunting.  While preparing for my next webinar on Thursday, I put together some key discussion points to help leaders make this distinction. These points are aimed at helping them improve their employee relations and talent management processes.  Here’s a preview of my discussion points:

Coaching

Coaching—whether for leaders or for subordinates—is unique in that is involves a collaborative process between the coach and the recipient.   Coaching is done when an employee is already meeting expectations, and is used as a method to establish self-directed goals.  When successfully coaching employees, managers open a two-way discussion to create an environment in which the employee feels comfortable being sincere with his or her superior. The employee is encouraged to set personal development goals that he or she can monitor.  The leader’s role, then, is to instill confidence in the employee—communicate respect for the employee’s goals.  As a relationship of goodwill and trust is established with the employee, the coaching process becomes smooth and effective.

RELATED POST: Top 10 Leadership Coaching Issues

Corrective Action

In contrast to coaching, corrective action is used when an employee is not meeting minimum expectations.  Corrective action is the most effective strategy to use when an employee is performing poorly, and should take a directive (top-down) approach.  Corrective action focuses not only on the problem itself, but also on the natural and environmental consequences of the problem.  The end-goal is for the employee to begin satisfying the minimum expectations in his or her job.  Oftentimes, corrective action includes an expression of the seriousness of the poor performance and the final consequences of not improving.

Coaching and corrective-action tactics create a balance between controlling and empowering.  Where corrective action requires a more controlling approach—best used for very simple tasks or severe consequences for failure—coaching focuses on empowering the individual, or guiding him or her to even higher levels of performance by creating an environment characterized by motivation and collaboration.

JOIN THE WEBINAR: Coaching vs. Corrective Action

Join Charles Rogel and me on Thursday, May 16, as we discuss these two strategies.   We will provide you with real-life examples of the difference you can make when you effectively use both corrective action and genuine coaching.

Priority 1: Confidentiality

Our discussions about confidentiality generally center around how employees will take the survey and how their responses will be shown on the online reporting tool.  Our project managers voice the need to have a range of flexibility for various client projects.  Some clients prefer to use a generic survey link that allows complete anonymity for all employees.  Other clients match employee responses by email or a unique login code to demographic information to achieve more accurate reporting.

Additionally, some clients require at least 10 responses per category to show results on a report, while others need only 3 (our recommendation is 5).  Acknowledging the variability that lies in this preference, the system has been built to accommodate many thresholds.

Finally, there has to be a way to manage access to the online reporting tool for various levels of leaders in the organization—providing greater detail is provided to senior leaders and less to those on the front-line.  All of these considerations have sometimes created somewhat passionate discussions about what is best-practice and what is best for a particular client.

Priority 2: Functionality

With virtually endless possibilities, our list of potential features keeps growing every week.  For example, a new feature that ranks each manager by engagement score spawned a discussion about additional ways users could rank managers by department and location.  Feedback from beta testing with clients shows a strong need to include multiple years of trending data and benchmarking comparisons (international, national, industry, top-tier, etc.).  Our focus has been to include the features clients need now and continually release new features as they are ready.

Priority 3: Design

We’ve all given our input for how the system should look, but our marketing team has been perhaps the most adamant about the system’s appearance.  From the start, we decided that we need to have complete buy-in from our entire team before finalizing any stylistic elements.  After a number of revisions and demos, the clients that have been invited to beta-test the system have been extremely pleased—and so have we.

With our system’s public-release date just around the corner (June 3), our team is more excited than ever.  What are some of the features you’re most looking forward to?  Or, what are some features your company looks for in an online employee survey and reporting tool?  We’d love to receive your feedback—and we promise we’ll turn it into results.