There’s been some discussion lately that, as employees start to see
signs of economic recovery, they’ll begin to dust off their resumes and
start searching for a new opportunity. If you want to read more about
this, check out the posts here and here.
(Insert sarcasm here.) Frankly, I’m shocked. The implication that
companies have used this near-catastrophic recession to undercut and
deflate employee salaries, bully employees into thinking that they’re
damn lucky to have a job, withhold training and development, etc. is
just beyond my comprehension. Come on Corporate America…you wouldn’t
think of doing this stuff, right?! (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) Stand up and tell the world why your employees aren’t going to jump ship at the very first sign of economic prosperity.
(Back to professional tone.) Alright. So maybe one or two businesses have taken advantage. Let’s not completely pick on them.
(Insert skepticism here.) How many employees who are getting ready
to look for greener pastures told their companies during the interview
process that they were fine with taking a cut in pay? Or a reduction
in benefits? Or driving double the distance to work? And, now they're
planning to bail after they convinced some business owner they wouldn’t?
(Resume serious tone.) Something tells me that both employees and
employers are a little guilty right now of being less than completely
open, honest, and transparent. If companies want to avoid a train wreck in terms of mass exodus, now is the time to engage in some dialogue with employees about what they want in terms of job/pay/benefits and what you as the company can afford. In turn, employees need to be forthright with their managers about their expectations and goals for the future.
It is possible to mitigate the mass turnover that’s being predicted. Organizations and employees can work together and create compromise. Start having some very honest conversations. Do it now. Don’t wait until it’s too late.
One of my favorite shows is Dirty Jobs with Mike Rowe
on the Discovery Chanel. Mr. Bartender has actually been employed in
a few of the jobs shown during the opening credits. When we met, his
job was doing whale autopsies, which (trust me) was a very dirty job.
For those who aren’t familiar, host Mike Rowe,
a former professional opera singer, scours the country in search of the
men and women who work some of the most thankless, undesirable, and
horribly dirty jobs imaginable. Then, he works as their apprentice,
doing each aspect of the job and getting every bit as dirty as they
do. The show’s premise: highlight the work of these hard working
individuals who make life bearable for the rest of us.
Aside from the sheer entertainment value of watching Mike deal with
poop, slop, slime and dirt, there are several business lessons to be
learned from watching Dirty Jobs:
Training is not optional. There’s no way this show would
exist if Mike didn’t get some sort of training to do these jobs. Most
of the training is on the job (OJT) but that’s fine. There’s nothing
wrong with OJT. The point is training is required and it does happen.
Employee engagement matters. Mike is constantly analyzing the
responsibilities of his job and relating it to what happens in the
organization as a whole. He’s successful because, during the program,
he comes to understand how his work benefits the company overall.
Involvement builds trust. Many of the jobs Mike works at
involve a safety component. It’s essential for him to trust the people
he’s working with and vice versa. The employees are able to maintain a
safe work environment because they trust each other. And, that trust
comes from being involved and invested in each other’s success. Keep
in mind that involvement also has the added benefit of helping to
identify operational efficiencies.
Trust creates teams. It might sound simplistic, but when
employees trust that their co-workers are working just as hard and for
the same goal, it creates a common bond for the group. There are no
silos and no agendas. It’s about focusing on the work.
As managers and leaders, we know one of the key ingredients to
workplace success is building strong, self-managing teams. Our role is
to act as a trainer. To educate employees on the big picture and their part in the ultimate success of the organization.
IMHO, Dirty Jobs is a successful program because Mike Rowe is a big
picture kinda guy. And, the big picture in this case isn’t dirt,
grime, sludge or soot. It’s about work. The future of work. And, how we all fit in that future.
If you haven’t had the chance to see this clip (it’s been circulated
a lot), here’s Mike at last year’s TED Conference discussing the
pitfalls of job marginalization. You see, despite his usual appearance
on the show, Mike is a very sharp guy. And his message of
organizational awareness is something we can all benefit from every day
in our jobs . . . dirty or not.
Earlier this week, Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) suggested that executives at AIG Insurance should accept responsibility for the collapse of their company by either resigning or killing themselves.
Yes, that's right. An elected member of the U.S. Senate suggested
that people commit suicide as a way to accept responsibility for this
financial fiasco we're in.
Normally, I let this kind of stupid, mean-spirited, illogical
commentary roll off my back. It doesn't help our current situation.
In fact, it does nothing but hurt it. But Sen. Grassley's remark just
went way beyond the pale.
If you haven't kept up with the AIG situation, here's the 30-second rundown:
I think it's a waste of breath to debate whether or not AIG ranks
right up there with the most misguided and mismanaged companies of all
time or if their "leaders" should be stripped of their bonuses.
Clearly, the answer to both of these issues is a resounding yes. If
the brass at AIG were smart, they'd decline the bonus money (even if
they're contracted to get it).
But that being said, words just don't seem adequate to describe how
unbelievably inappropriate it is for a U.S. Senator to suggest a person
commit suicide over it.
What we need right now is calm, level-headed leadership. And, as a
leader, the last thing you should be doing right now is passing blame.
Let's stay focused on putting the pieces in place to fix the problem
and then develop measures to insure this doesn't happen again. And
that goes equally for AIG-type fiscal incompetence and the election of
brainless politicians.
I was recently talking with someone who used to work for General Electric during the Jack Welch
era. They said that working at GE was the best job they've ever had.
Not because things were "nice" but because the management team pushed
you to be the "best" you could be.
It reminded of that classic question, "Tell me about the best boss
you've ever had. And, why they were so great." My answer is similar.
My best boss wasn't always the nicest person to work with. She was the
one that pushed me to be better. When I made the decision to leave, we
laughed about her being exasperating at times...but I give her a
tremendous amount of credit for pushing me into areas of HR that I
wouldn't have gone otherwise.
On the other hand, the nicest boss I ever worked with was also the
one who was around the shortest amount of time. After not delivering
profits three months in a row, he was gone.
What I learned from both of them is that being a manager means
having to make tough decisions and communicate difficult messages. It
means making decisions
in the best interest of the company. And, sometimes no matter how hard
you try...people will not always perceive your actions and decisions as
nice.
Does that mean that managers can't be both? Of course not. But in order to be perceived as both nice and best, you need to:
Set levels of expectation. On the front end.
Reward and recognize results and behaviors that align with your company culture.
If you notice potential superstars, tell them and encourage them to take on new and additional responsibilities.
Coach employees who are struggling with performance.
Communicating with honesty and empathy can soften those difficult
conversations. The important thing is to still have the conversation.
Sounds simple. Someone writes a memo. Most people don't write
memos because they have nothing else to do, so let's assume there's a
legitimate business reason for their correspondence. It's the
receiver's obligation to read the memo. End of discussion.
Now some people on the receiving end of memos like to abdicate responsibility for reading by tossing out a bunch of excuses:
"It was too long."
If a memo is too long, teach the person writing the memo how to craft
clear and concise sentences. It's not an excuse to ignore what the
sender has to say.
"It was boring."
Hate to break it to ya...but very necessary information is sometimes
boring. Reading the troubleshooting guide for my printer is boring.
But when it stopped working and I had a client deadline...somehow it
seemed both interesting and necessary.
This same principle applies to emails, reports, etc. If you have
access to the information, then it's your responsibility to review it.
The trend in excuses du jour is to claim that you never got the email.
I think it's the funniest thing when people pull the "I didn't get the
email" excuse. Likewise, the announcement at a beginning of a meeting
that their server went down...so "if you sent me something, I might not
have received it."
I don't understand why people don't just tell the truth. Just say, "I was busy playing Wurdle
and forgot completely about our meeting. So I was going to craft some
lame excuse because you'd never be able to call me on it. Except for
the fact I answered your emails about March Madness and birthday cake in the breakroom."
If you haven't figured it out yet, personal accountability and transparency go hand in hand.
P.S. Interested in reading more about leadership and accountability? Grab a green beer and check out the great posts at this month's Carnival of Leadership Development. HR Bartender is proud to be among the list. Thanks to Dan McCarthy at Great Leadership for hosting!
While I enjoyed reading the white paper, I thought the last thing
Dr. Jac said should have been the first thing he pointed out to make
his case. It reads:
"The HR function has no inherent right to exist. It
serves at the pleasure of its customers. Managers and employees are
not fools. Rebranding must go beyond the 1970s relabeling of personnel
as human resources. The change must be substantive and aligned to the
interconnected revolution taking place amongst employees, customers,
regulators and competitors."
Wow. Very powerful. I couldn't think of another department that
doesn't have the inherent right to exist. Marketing and sales -
can't survive without 'em. Technology - yeah you can outsource but it
still exists in a different form. Accounting - gotta have it.
If human resources has no inherent right to exist, does this mean
that HR Pros could become extinct in our lifetime? Maybe we're on the
endangered species list right now.
Our current economic crisis is making one thing perfectly clear...human resources must demonstrate value.
They need to walk the talk, be a business partner, get a seat at the
table...whatever cliché you want to use. If you're talking about it,
just stop and start doing it. I've written before about the things we
need to do - check them out here, here, here, here and here.
Do I expect HR to go the way of the 8-track, typewriter, and
Mastodon? I certainly hope not. But the only way we'll continue to
exist as a profession is to learn more and invest in own development.
We need to change with our businesses and our workforce. If we don't
want to be left behind, we need to make it a priority to move forward.
I'm a little surprised at the lack of convo about recruiting right now.
While I've spent the majority of my career as a generalist, I've always realized that the recruiting function can make or break me.
Most of my career has been directed toward fixing HR departments. And,
in my experience, I've found there is a correlation between broken HR
departments and broken recruiting functions. Example - if the
recruiting function isn't working as it should, managers complain that
HR isn't (a) finding people fast enough or (b) sourcing qualified
candidates. Then they add, if HR would get their recruiting act
together, the operation could deliver (a) good service and (b) on time.
Even though we're currently experiencing job losses...there
still needs to be conversation about recruiting. I know, I know...your
company isn't hiring right now. So what? Just because you're not
hiring doesn't mean that you should forget about the fact that, at some
point, you will be hiring.
So just as your company is working hard right now to increase profits, the person responsible for recruiting should be:
Thinking about the next big thing your company is working on.
Assessing if your current employees are able to deliver that new product or service.
Determining the competencies your future employees need.
Building the structure to find those individuals
There are a lot of talented people in the job market right now...as you're working through your plans for 2009...are you losing sight of your people strategy?
There's been a lot of talk about corporations and government
being more transparent. As a result, the use of the word transparency
is creeping into our business vocabulary. But before you start tossing
out the word "transparency" it's important to understand what it means.
I think a lot of people are using transparency has a synonym for
truth. If I'm telling the truth, then I'm being transparent. I
contend that the relationship between truth and transparency is similar
to the relationship between reliability and validity as it relates to
assessments.
If an
instrument is valid, then it's reliable. But if something is reliable,
that doesn't mean it's valid. Case in point: you can be consistently
wrong.
So my thought is, if you're transparent then you are truthful.
However, telling the truth doesn't make you transparent. Here's an
example:
An 8 oz. glass is filled with 4 oz. of wine. You can say that glass
is half-full or half-empty (depending upon your disposition). Both
would be the truth.
Transparency is saying there's 4 oz. of wine in the glass.
It's a simplistic example, but you get the point. Transparency
implies openness, communication and personal accountability. It's not
only telling the truth but providing access to all the data and
encouraging inclusiveness in the decision making process.
For many individuals and businesses, transparency is and will
continue to be difficult to achieve. There's a tendency to spin
situations for positive outcomes. The demand to act in a transparent
manner requires people to hold themselves accountable for information
they receive. It's becomes their responsibility to share it, discuss
it and help others understand it.
We need to push to make sure the "knowledge is power" and "need to
know" concepts are gone forever. It's time to take transparency
seriously.
I want to thank Lance Haun over at Your HR Guy for a terrific post yesterday called "Welcome to the Excuse Economy." Lance addresses head-on a very important point about personal accountability.
Being personally accountable for your own actions isn't easy. It's
so much easier to say it's the other guy's fault, or our government's
fault, or a big, bad corporation's fault. It's hard to say, "I messed
up so let me make it right. Let me regain your trust and confidence."
I've touched on this before. There are a lot of people (and companies) who are blaming all of their challenges on the economy.
I can't get a job because of the economy.
We can't sell anything because of the economy.
No sense working harder because people just aren't buying (because of the economy).
You've probably heard it too. But don't get me wrong. There are
many individuals and businesses that have been hit hard by this
economic downturn through no fault of their own. However, we need to
differentiate between those organizations who have the right players in
place and are working at a full-court press to make rain versus those who are throwing up their hands and just blaming their lackluster sales on the economy.
Individuals need to hold themselves accountable for delivering
results for themselves and their companies. If you have all the right
pieces in place for customers to buy your product/service...but they
don't, I can allow the economy argument. But, if you don't have those
pieces in place, then it's really not the economy...it's lack of
commitment, efficiency and productivity.
The first step to our economic recovery is not allowing excuses and
holding people accountable. Thanks Lance, for putting personal
accountability right where it needs to be - under the microscope.
I recently attended a workshop on managing during challenging economic times. In the session, an interesting discussion started about Gen X and Y employees and the fact they've never seen this kind of economic crisis before. At least compared to Baby Boomers who have seen the inflation of the 70s (and lived through the Great Depression second-hand from their parents).
What I found interesting in the conversation was that HR Pros were saying this economic challenge was good...because those Gen X and Y employees are finally stepping up to the plate to meet the KSAs for their position. My mind immediately started racing...
HR Pros (and managers) should not be hiding behind the economy to get employees to perform. I saw a post on The Recruiters Lounge about layoffs and the point that management should not use the economy to deal with performance issues. The message is spot on. Managers need to make decisions and deal with issues when they arise.
KSAs are defined as the knowledge, skills and abilities to do the job. That being said, logic would tell you KSAs don't change just because the economy changes. KSAs change because the job changes. Now if the job changes because of the economy...that makes sense. But if an employee has a performance issue or unrealistic expectations, deal with it. It's not fair to make excuses and hide behind the economy.
But the thought that kept coming back to me was "Is this line of thinking (i.e. Gen X/Y aligning with Boomers) good for our workplaces?" And, my gut keeps telling me no.
If our emerging workforce are being dragged back to the comfort zone of Baby Boomers, what happens to innovation? When I was a kid, my father taught me how to use a slide rule. Said it would come in handy as an adult. In the meantime, Texas Instruments invented a scientific calculator. And, now I'm using an iPhone.
Now more than ever, it's time for companies to embrace different thinking and even leverage it to excel. It's those differences that could create innovations that get us out of this economic mess. HR Pros should be helping their management teams lead the conversation during this time of change and uncertainty.
If they don't, do we run the risk of watching the C-suite go back to their comfort zones of not having human resources at all?
