Your onboarding sucks (and what you should do instead)
Most onboarding sucks because the term "onboarding" is misunderstood.
So, what is onboarding? And how do you know when someone really is "on board"?
When I think about my own experiences when starting a new role, there are two very distinct questions that must be answered to determine whether I really am "on board":
Am I able to meet the expected level of performance required for the role?
Am I motivated to do so?
If we agree a new recruit is only "onboard" once the answer to both these questions is "yes," it makes somewhat of a mockery of what is currently perceived as "onboarding”.
Traditional onboarding usually includes:
administrative box-ticking by HR
access from IT to systems and tools, and
an undefined period of handholding by a manager and colleagues.
The manager, already overwhelmed with their own workload, is responsible for the bulk of the work—pointing out where everything lives, explaining the nuances of the systems, walking new hires through typical responsibilities.
They might recruit other team members to shoulder the burden, although they too are already busy with their own workload.
For the new starter, the following few weeks are a battle of attrition, and often include:
consuming hours of training
making copious notes
cramming information
keeping track of where to go for answers
documenting the nuances of their responsibilities
figuring out to what standard their work should be, and
pestering their boss and colleagues with questions.
All while trying to avoid appearing needy or incompetent and wondering whether they're meeting the expectations of the business.
For most companies, it remains unclear whether this traditional approach is successful. It's rare that a new recruit is evaluated on whether they really are "onboard" using the metrics outlined above (performance and motivation), so no one knows.
Are they logging on each day and doing their job?
Yes.
Are they performing to the desired standards and fully motivated to keep doing so?
Who knows.
Thus, one could argue that unless both boxes can be ticked for all employees, the vast majority of employees aren't yet fully "onboard" (and may never be).
Of course, debating the true definition of onboarding may seem like semantics or clever word-smithery. But the primary reason businesses suffer symptoms such as overwhelm, firefighting, low productivity, quiet quitting, lack of innovation, employee churn, short-term thinking etc., is not because these are inherent in running a business (that’s tantamount to the ludicrous suggestion that all systems must have some degree of dysfunction).
No, it’s because most of their employees are not fully "on board".
And if most of our people are not on board, these symptoms only get worse.
The reason businesses face overwhelm, firefighting, low productivity, quiet quitting, lack of innovation, employee churn, short-term thinking etc. is because most of their people are not fully "onboard".
So, how do we make sure they are on board?
We must:
engineer the systems and means to enable them to perform
measure their performance objectively, and
provide constructive, timely feedback.
Interestingly, when we enable people to perform, addressing their motivation becomes a moot point (once people are doing a great job and feel supported, their engagement goes through the roof).
Want to develop onboarding excellence within your business? Check out our innovative approach to employee onboarding.
