The Employee Experience. Wride Matthew

for Ingvar, the company has some flexibility in how early employees leave in the afternoon, as long as they begin at 7:00 a.m. sharp and finish critical projects before heading out for the day. Ingvar finds this a real plus. Edvar, however, feels constrained by the 7:00 a.m. start time. It simply doesn’t meet his needs. He also thought that “work-life balance” meant he would have some flexibility that facilitated the “life” part of the equation as much as it did the “work” part. No such luck. In fact, last time he brought it up to his supervisor, he was told to “go read the policy manual.” He had also understood that he could be fast-tracked to a management position if he showed promise, which, in his mind, he clearly has. But he’s still in the same role he was in when he started with Ingvar over a year ago. He begins looking for new employment.

      Two employees. Identical ELC experiences. Very different EXs.

      EX depends largely on perception and expectations. (We’ll cover the expectations part in more depth in the next chapter.) The perception portion dictates the outcome of the experience. The EX is based on the employee’s perception of what it going on, not always on the reality of what occurs. This is why Ingvar and Edvar can have identical experiences yet their EXs can be vastly different:

EX = Experiences + Expectations + Perceptions

      A positive EX, then, isn’t just a factor of what the company throws at the employee. Rather, it’s a result of how the employee perceives those experiences, and whether or not they meet her expectations.

      Most organizations fail to understand this concept. They believe that creating a stellar EX is a matter of tossing out a few perks that they believe to be universally appealing (seriously, who doesn’t like Taco Tuesdays or a tube slide from the third floor down to the lobby?), then calling themselves “great places to work.” Yet their workers are still unhappy, and they move on to places where their EX is better aligned with what they’re looking for. After all, in today’s environment, employees have choices.

      EGGHEAD ALERT!

      Field Theory

      Developed by psychologist Kurt Lewin, the concepts of “life space” and “field theory” are now important parts of social and organizational psychology. Lewin taught that behavior (B) is a function (f) of personal (P) and environmental (E) factors:

      Lewin defined “life space” as a combination of the factors that influence an individual at any point in time. These factors could include life experience, memories, needs, personality, health, desires, and others. As these factors differ from person to person, each individual’s life space differs from that of another individual. The field, then, is the environment that exists in the individual’s (or group’s) mind. This field changes over time and with experiences. Field theory explains why two individuals (or groups) may encounter a nearly identical situation but may interpret that situation differently.