Caution on Surveys

Posted on March 15, 2012 by David Wetzel

This was previously published as “Caution on Questionnaires” I had to change the name as I was getting uncontrollably spammed in comments on this post.

Questionnaires can provide much useful information for the organization. It can also be a means for employees to express feelings they have about the company. I have worked with organizations who have used employee attitude surveys for the benefit of the organizaiton and others who had alterior motives that I felt were ethically questionable.

One requirement when administering surveys and questionnaires, is to ensure they are annyonomous and voluntary.  Some organizations send out the surveys through the company’s email system. How annyonomous is this if the employee keeps getting reminders to take the survey. I am sure that there is technology that can track participation, but then is it truely voluntary and annyonomous?

In one organization, I asked about the annyonominity of a survey (because I was one of the senior leaders at a facility) and I was told that it was annyonomous, because everyone at the senior level across the company was lumped together, so yes, it was annyonomous. Convinced, I gave honest feedback on the organization and its executive leaders. And as promised, I was grouped with all my peers across the company. Results were then sent out by location. Being one of the leaders at the site, it became apparent who wrote which comments.

One organization gave all employees an attitude survey each Spring. It was administered through the corporate department of organizational effectiveness. Each year we would get the same results: we needed to work on the areas of compensation, reward & recognition, favoritism and communication. I had a discussion with the corporate department and was told that their only concern and motivation was to check for threat of labor organizing. Once they determined there was not a threat they just turned it over to the sites to fix whatever issues had surfaced.  Needless to say the sites were not trained in Organizational Development (OD) so no matter what they tried, they saw the same results year after year.

The last thing I want to say on the topic is that employees can get burned out taking surveys. If the employees are participating, but they never see anything change, it makes them reluctant to take the survey the next time or any other survey for that matter.  I would also caution that if you are not in a position to make changes, don’t administer the survey. It will do more to ruin morale and trust than if it wasn’t given at all.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

How Versitile Are Good Leaders?

Posted on March 14, 2012 by David Wetzel

I always find it interesting to ask people how important it is for the leader to be technically proficient. In other words, does the leader have to have vast HR knowledge to oversee the HR department or could you take someone who is a good leader in operations and they would be a good leader in HR too. As you can imagine, the answers vary. There are those who are adamant on both sides. From my perspective, while the tacit knowledge is valuable, it is not a requirement to being a successful leader. Actually, as one moves further up the ladder, the less technically proficient one must be.

My experience has been that good leadership skills are just that, good leadership skills. They are transferrable; a good Ops manager can be a good HR manager and vice versa. This is because you are actually in the people business. You are leading people and those skills are the same regardless of the department.

I cannot tell you the number of times where employees have come to me with problem regarding their technical job. Honestly, most of the time I was so far removed that I didn’t have a clue. However, what I did find, was that the majority of employees know their job, and have an idea of the best course of action. So I started asking a lot of questions and listening. My side of the conversation would sound something like this: What is the problem? What do you see as the alternatives? What are the pros and cons of each alternative? Which alternative do you see as being the best? Assuming that there is nothing that raises a red flag of concern, I suggest we proceed with the alternative they see as being best and ask that they keep me appraised of the situation. I cannot say that I ever regret working the situation this way.

First of all, who knows their job better than they do? This is an area that I truly find interesting. In the Toyota Production System, the Japanese have a saying that if you want to know how a job is done, you “Go to Gemba” or go talk to the person doing the work. I can’t tell you how many times I have seen leaders who think they know how work gets done only to find out later they didn’t have a clue. I don’t know, maybe its ego related, but rather than find out you are wrong and have to make a broad adjustment later, wouldn’t it just be easier to go ask the employee doing the work? Unfortunately, while you can adjust direction, often you can’t fix the morale issues you created as well as the damage to your personal credibility.

Second, I asked their opinion and then listen to what they have to say. They are now a colleague. I am showing them respect as the matter expert (SME) and that I value what they have to say. I am telling them that they are valuable to the organization.

Third, we set a course of action. Usually, the option they recommended. This validates them and empowers them to do their job. Don’t underestimate how powerful this really is. There is a plethora of research out there on the benefits of an empowered workforce and companies are spending large sums of money to get an empowered workforce. Yet, the results are mixed. I believe this is because it is a leadership issue and some people are resistant to be good leaders no matter how much you spend.   

Fourth, what this process conveys to the employee is that I have your back. As revealed earlier in the process, I believe that the employee already know what to do. If not, after a couple times through the process, they can figure it out on their own, however they know I am available if necessary. While I believe that whether consciously or subconsciously the employees know the best course of action, what I truly believe they are looking for at this point, is for me to take responsibility should things go wrong. Once they believe that the boss has their back and they feel empowered to do their job. They will take the action they feel best and just let me know of the potential issue, and the action that they took, so I won’t be blind-sided. Just keep in mind that just as every employee is different, so is the amount of time required for each to trust the leader. It is also important that if things do go wrong, take responsibility, and then find out what went wrong. If you blame your employee you risk losing their (and all the other employee’s) trust and your credibility.

Lastly, I ask they keep me appraised. This tells them that I care about the outcome of the problem and that I may even ask them when I see them. Or, if they discover there is a problem, they can come and tell me (generally this won’t happen if you are a leader that shoots any employee that brings bad news). Often the earlier you find there is a problem the easier it is to fix. From the leader’s perspective, as I alluded to earlier, there is little worse than being blind-sided that there is a problem by your boss, peers or customer. Employees will go to great lengths to protect a credible leader.  

While this process may not be optimal for all situations, I think you will find it works well for the majority of us. And I don’t know about you, but I am okay with not having to have or appear to have all the answers. I’m okay with empowering and letting my employees be the subject matter experts and I’m okay with taking responsibility should things go wrong. In my book, the benefits far outweigh the alternative.

Posted in Leadership | Leave a comment

EVALUATING YOUR TEAM

Posted on December 17, 2011 by David Wetzel

 Believe it or not, you can tell a lot about a team by the way its members talk. Linguistics is a great tool to determine if your team is real or not. The words, sentences, and patterns of speech indicate how team members think and feel about each other. In evaluating this, six areas are examined.

Identification is how much one identifies with the team. Being a member of a cross-functional team can be challenging as they have to try and manage multiple identities. Professionals tend to identify strongly with their disciplines (departments) who may have different ways of acting, talking and approaching tasks, work and projects. Being a cross-functional team member thrusts a whole new shared identity on team members. Real teams tend to talk using the plural pronouns we, our and us versus I and me.

Interdependence means that the team members share responsibility and are dependent upon one another. A key to determining if a team is real or not is if there is a common perception of interdependence among the members. Actions indicating interdependence include acknowledgment of mutual interests and expressions of one’s own needs, proposals for joint action and solicitation of others’ views, needs, and preferences.

Power differentiation is when members of the team use power (or perceived power) to influence the group. Real teams, however, deemphasize power to avoid suppressing opinions, which can lead to better solutions.  Forms of talk that emphasize differences of power between speaker and listener include: dominating the floor, interruption, questioning, demands and directives, topic changes and challenges.  Forms used to minimize power differences include, apologies, disclaimers, hedges, indirect questions and requests, and politeness. Research has shown that power differentiation reduces contribution and commitment.

Social distance signals closeness and inclusion. Addressing a team member by his/her nickname signals closeness. Real teams have this closeness and are benefitted, because the members are not spending their time positioning, calculating and monitoring the other team members. Instead, they are able to focus on the work and being productive. Real teams have an informal style of speech, they claim group membership and have common views. Members display knowledge of, or concern for other team members’ wants, they express liking or admiration for other team members, use nicknames, make presumptive requests or statements, utilize similar word use, empathy, and humor. Nominal teams tend to be more formal in their language, disagreement, and disconfirmation. They often fail to acknowledge or respond to other team member’s comments, and don’t socialize or maintain relationships outside of work.

Conflict management. In teams, conflict is inevitable and desirable. The absence of conflict can be more problematic than its presence. The tactics used to manage the conflict and not the amount of conflict distinguishes real teams from nominal ones.  Nominal teams tend to avoid conflict, are accommodating to the other members even if they have differing views, compromise by making decision without considering all perspectives, delay, redirect decisions and vote on decisions. Real teams use confrontation and collaboration tactics to solicit the views and preferences of all members’, redefining the problem and taking everyone’s views into account. Consensus and dissent are sought and they seldom delegate decisions to those higher up the chain.

Negotiation Process. The Win-Lose orientation is expressed through positions of self-interest, use of power differences, and words that refer to dividing things, to debt, concession, winning, and losing. The win-win orientation is shown by elaborating on the ideas of others, exploration of the implications of those ideas, and reevaluation or reframing of one’s own interests based on the other team members.

I have worked as a member of real teams and nominal teams. At the time, I didn’t have this information, so I didn’t know that some of the teams were not really teams at all. This information should give you a means to assess any team where you have membership.  If you are the member of a nominal team, what should you do? I’ll address this in a later post.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Can the Do’s of Employee Engagement Be Bad?

Posted on November 27, 2011 by David Wetzel

In the November 2011 issue of HR Magazine, there was an article on the “Do’s and Don’ts For Employee Engagement.” I have encluded the list of Do’s and Don’ts from the article.

Do

  • Make sure employees have the support and tools to be successful.
  • Communicate promptly, even it that means providing a time frame for a later response.
  • Share information about how the company is performing, even if the news isn’t positive. “Have an open-door-policy to answer staff questions.”
  • Encourage staff to be creative. “If you can’t immediately implement a proposed initiative, explain why and let the team know you value their input.”
  • Acknowledge employees for their contributions to the organization’s success.

Don’t

  • Act as if employees are lucky to have a job.
  • Fail to answer e-mails and voice mails from employees in a timely manner.
  • Ignore rumors about the business.
  • Create a “no” zone where new ideas languis because they lack support.
  • Fail to recognize staff accomplishments.

Let’s start by looking at the Do list. While this list is inheriently good, if the leader is not authentic, he/she would be better off not doing them.  Just take the open door policy. While popular, there are only a few leaders I have worked for who really meant it. One that I am thinking of says that he has an open door policy, but the ones I know who have taken advantage of the policy, ended up wishing they had not.  It didn’t take too many people experiencing this phenomenon, before everyone in the organization knew that he really didn’t mean it. I still think this leader believes his open door policy is viable and effective.  

Encourage your staff to be creative. If creativity is not part of the culture of the organization and/or if leaders do not act on suggestions of creative employees, the employees will disengage. If the leaders actions do not match their words, the employees will see this discrepancy and no one will make suggestions. I can’t tell you how many times I have heard employees say “why should we make suggestions, nothing will come of them?” Fixing this can be slow as you have to build trust and take action on creative suggestions. Look for small wins. Explain why some suggestions are not in alignment with the companies direction or strategy. Be authentic as employees can tell when they are being ignored.

Acknowledge employees for their contributions to the organization’s success. One thing I have noticced over the years is that many employees don’t understand how their individual contributions add or detract to the company’s success.  If they understand, this is a powerful motivator.  I worked for a boss who set a difficult goal for the organization. The organization worked really hard to reach a goal and when it was attained, he said good job and in the same breath, told us the next goal we had to meet. It seemed fake and we all felt used. It was obvious that he was all about the numbers and not really about the people.

The real point here is that while this is generally good advice, if the leader is not authentic, he/she can do more harm than good.  Leaders also need to be aware of the organizational culture and realize that changing the culture or building trust can be a long and slow process, but well worth the effort.

Posted in Leadership | Tagged , | 2 Comments

Bullying at Work

Posted on November 16, 2011 by David Wetzel

There have been numerous new articles regarding kids bullying other kids at school and people who are cyber-bullying. It is however not just on the playground or on the Internet…It is also in the workplace. Work place bullying refers to unreasonalbe actions of an individual directed towards an employee which are intended to intimidate, humiliate, degrade, and undermine. This will create a risk to the health or safety of the employee.

Bulying is not considered illegal in the U.S. and demanding bosses are not necessarily bullies as long as they are fair and respectful. They become bullies when they blame employees without justification, exclude employees, isolate them, swear at them, shout at them, set unreasonable workloads or timelines.

In some organizations, bullying may just be part of the culture. Research suggests that as many as 41 percent or workers were the target of bullying in the last year, with 13 percent stating they were bullied on a daily basis (Schat, Frone and Kelloway, 2006).

Victims of bullies at work are usually confident, skilled and self-motivated. They have strong work ethics, are independent, honest and are well-liked by their peers and most supervisors. They are not typically weaklings or outcasts.

Bullies tend  (72% of the time) to be insecure bosses who can’t stand the thought of sharing credit or giving credit to a subordinate. They resent and try to stop higher-ups from giving their target positive feedback and in fact will try to intervene and stifle any advancement opportunities. The may even encourage other employees to fabricate complaints about the target. Bullies treat their target differently from the rest of the group. They try to isolate or exclude them from social and group events and try to degrade, humiliate or belittle their targets to try and maintain a feeling of control over them. Dominance is also maintained by creating a competitive and agressive work environment, pitting employees against each other in assignments or contests where there can be only one winner and usually, predetermined losers.

When executives or upper level managers are confronted with the problem of bullying, they deny responsibility and refuse to take corrective actions, because these bullies get results the CEO likes to see. The bullies are often rewarded and promoted, for these results, thus reinforcing their negative behavior.

Only 40% of those bullied come forward, primarily because those who file complaints suffer retribution from 1) senior management for making waves, 2) the bully as now he/she is really mad, and 3) their coworkers, for causing increased tension within the workplace (see the post on whistle blowing).

The effects of being bullied are significant and long lasting and include musculotal problems, stomach and intestinal problems, headaches, chronic fatigue, severe depression, anxiety disorders, including Post Tramatic Stress Disorder, new phobias, sleep disturbances, memory problmes, cognitive disruptions and cardio vascular stress. We wonder why employees take short term disability and FMLA to get away from their boss (for more on this topic see the post on the Cost of Poor Leadership)?

To stop bullying, companies must launch an anti-bullying campaign, and institute annual training. This training should explain bullying, the consequences of bullying, and encourage victims to report any infraction. For the program to be effective, it must include a zero tolerance policy for bullying  that deals with bully behavior directly and immediately, and employees need multiple ways of reporting abuse i.e., an independent point of contact, a hotline and or open door policies of senior management where employees feel they can report and discuss the issue freely. 

I recently went through my annual ethics training with a company I do some work with and it was included as part of this training. There is no place for bullying in the work place. Failure to deal with this issue will affect your bottom line.

Schat, A., Frone, M., & Kelloway, E. (2006). Prevalence of workplace aggression in the U.S. workforce: Findings from a national study; in E.K. Kelloway, J. Barling, and J. Hurrell (Eds.),  Handbook of workplace violence (pp. 47-49). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

The research for this post was done by Shane Titsworth, a graduate student at Webster University.

Posted in Leadership, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 9 Comments

Leadership and Micromanagement

Posted on November 6, 2011 by David Wetzel

One of my favorite articles on leadership was written by Robert Kelley (1992) as discussed in Hickman, (1998). In the article Kelley discusses that 

  • Two out of five bosses have questionable abilities to lead.
  • Only one in seven leaders is someone that followers see as a potential role model to emulate.
  • Less than half of the leaders are able to instill trust in subordinates.
  • Nearly 40 percent have “ego” problems – are threatened by talented subordinates, have a need to act superior, do not share the limelight. (p.193)

When Kelley was conducting his research he asked 2 questions.

1) Is your boss good at leading and 2) does he like his job?  In both surveys, only 25 percent of the leaders met both conditions.

“In a companion survey he then asked the leaders how many would go back to their nonleader jobs if they could do so without a loss of face. Seventy-five percent said they would” (p. 201).

If you do the math, only somewhere between 25 percent and 50 percent of the people in leadership positions should be there. So really, 37.5% plus or minus 12.5% are good leaders.

This brings me to a theory that I have regarding leaders who micromanage their staffs. That theory works in conjunction with the Peter Principle (individuals getting promoted to a level of incompetence). Once they reach this level, because they don’t know how to do the job they are supposed to be doing, they turn around and micromanage their subordinates who are doing jobs the leaders used to do and feel comfortable doing. I have observed two issues with this over the years: 1) if you are micromanaging you are not scanning the environment for changes in the market and 2) you are driving your competent people insane. Let’s get this straight; both are bad. I don’t know how many VP’s I have known or worked for who have missed major shifts in the market because they were too busy making sure their subordinates were on top of things. In the end, I am sure it cost the company more by missing the shift in the market then by what would not have been accomplished if subordinates were not being micromanaged. Then there is also the loss of good people who can’t wait to jump ship just to get away from those managers. In my opinion, they are bad for morale, and they cost the company money in lost opportunities and employee turnover. I don’t have quantitative figures, but I think it would be an interesting study.

Hickman, G., (1998). Leading Organizations: Perspectives for a New Era. Thousand Oaks: Sage

Posted in Leadership | Tagged , | Leave a comment

The Cost of Poor Leadership

Posted on October 29, 2011 by David Wetzel

I recently had the time to read the September 2011 issue of HR Magazine. The main article was on the cost of absences. One of the areas it discussed was employees abusing or taking advantage of the system and going out on medical leave with ailments that are difficult to verify, i.e. back pain and migraines to name a couple. I think if we were honest, we all know people who have taken leave to get away from their boss.  One friend of mine was under such stress from her boss and work that it was giving her hives. Another was being bullied, predominately by her boss and went out on short term disability. Just stating that in some cases, people use the system to gain a short reprieve from their boss while looking for other employment.

Another article in this issue was on using incentives to motivate employees toward: better health, better living, productivity, losing weight…and the list goes on. The thing I really liked about this article was the closing paragraph. “Simply put, engage your employees through caring, coaching and counseling. Care about your employees on a human basis and they will care about you. Give them the proper tools to excel in their jobs. Most importantly, provide them with daily encouragement and motivation by recognizing your employees and in so doing, inspiring greatness.” For those who are uncomfortable with this touchy feely aspect of leading, they stated that the return on investment for such incentives (in 3 to 5 years) was $4 dollars in health care cost and $5 in reduced absenteeism for every dollar invested. That sounds like a good return on investment to me.

One of the things that I find interesting is that all this research is just supporting what advocates of good leadership have been saying for years… people leave bosses not companies, and if you take care of the employee, the employee will take care of the business. Perhaps this is so difficult, because it is hard to quantify good leadership. But by the same token, you cannot reduce people to, and treat them as 40 hours on a spreadsheet and expect them to be loyal and engaged in their job. We spend all this time monitoring and managing programs, metrics and things that would not exist, if we just cared about our people and treated them right. I think we miss seeing the forest for all of the trees.

Posted in Leadership | Tagged | 2 Comments

HR and Ethics

Posted on October 5, 2011 by David Wetzel

Lately I have been disturbed at the number of friends and acquaintances that have approached me about their work situation. After they tell me their story, I can’t help but wonder about the ethics of their HR department. I guess that I see HR as filling a dual role of trying to provide a balance between being an advocate for the employee and keeping the company out of litigation. No one ever said that it was an easy balance to create and maintain, but I just have noticed more people telling me their work stories and they are definitely trending more heavily toward the company side.

But what role does ethics play in this equation? I know that HR personnel work for the company, but when they discipline or intimidate and give the employee bogus reasoning knowing that the employee doesn’t know better and will probably just take HR’s word for it. That is just wrong.  If they get caught, the HR department will lose credibility with the employees and may even lead to increased litigation for the company.

I had an experience where I worked for a company that stated in the employee handbook that they paid reimbursements toward advanced degrees. When I started my Ph.D. program I approached the company about reimbursement. I was told (by the regional HR person) that it only pertained to Masters level and that they would not hire any Ph.D.’s in my field but perhaps only engineers and lawyers. I accepted that reasoning and shortly afterward, there was a change to the handbook stating that reimbursement was only for bachelors and masters degrees along with the typical stipulations. About a year later, I found out that not only did the company have someone with a Ph.D. like mine, but they had a whole department of them. I lost all respect for the regional HR director and questioned her motives and any advice she gave regarding personnel issues.

Recently, I have personally known a couple of instances where HR was involved in employee discipline which included an action plan being created based solely on the manager’s side of the story, without any HR investigation whatsoever. Later, when the truth came out, one of the managers was reassigned and the other has exposed the company to litigation, the stuff HR is supposed to help keep the company out of.  While HR is often overloaded and understaffed, it seems that the due diligence should not be shortcut.

My recommendation to you the reader is: if what you are being told by HR does not sound quite right, do some research on the topic. If it seems like you are getting railroaded, consult a labor attorney. It may prove to be well worth the money. Then you may be faced with whether to purse litigation or not as even if you leave, your acts may follow and cast a shadow on future employment opportunities.

Posted in Human Resources | Tagged | 5 Comments

Predicting Thoughts and Intentions

Posted on September 21, 2011 by David Wetzel

 

I find it interesting that people are very comfortable predicting the thoughts and intentions of those that they have only met. In talking to a person the other day about some OD work in a law office, she was sure that I wouldn’t be interested in the work because I would feel marginalized by the lawyers.  Similarly, I also encountered this all knowing phenomena when I was looking to do OD work while working on my Ph.D. You see, I spent most of 20 years doing change management and organizational efficiency and effectiveness work in the corporate setting but in the operations department. What I found when looking at OD positions was that I wasn’t qualified because I didn’t have HR on my resume (in most businesses, OD falls under HR and not operations even though OPS has been doing change management in the form of Total Quality Management, lean, and six sigma for decades). Also, many of the HR functions have been pushed out to operations through ERP and HRIS systems so if the hourly employee has a question they ask their front line supervisor and if they can’t figure it out then it is referred to someone in HR.

For some positions people are told that they are over qualified and that they won’t stay. Once a better position is found, they will be gone. Is that really any different than for any other person in the workplace?  Some of these workers are older now and have interests other than becoming the next VP of the company. They have worked their share of 16 hour days and really don’t care to work them on anything resembling a regular basis. Let the young 20 and 30 somethings who are trying to be the next VP work those hours. They like going home at the end of the day and enjoying the evening with their significant other. Many of them have missed their share of ballgames with their kids and dinners with the family. When it comes down to the bottom line, they have a mortgage and bills just like anyone else and they may just be happy with less responsibility. Think of it as getting a bargain deal…all that education and experience for less than you expected to pay. I’m Just saying that people are making predictions everyday about the intentions and behaviors of others without really knowing what they will do. Provide them with a boss that is credible and has integrity and watches out for their interests, and you may see more of them stay put and pass on greener pastures. Good bosses and good organizations are hard to find.

Posted in Recruiting | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Recruiting the Best Candidate

Posted on May 4, 2011 by David Wetzel

In an effort to be efficient, many companies utilize Human Resource Information Systems (HRIS) as part of their recruiting process. If you think about it, they almost have to. They post an opening on-line and are flooded with applicants and without a system to scan for key words, relevant work history, minimum requirements and then a means to store the applications, it would take a miracle and many man hours to review all those resumes to find the best candidate. My question is; does the technology and the process actually help find and recruit the best candidates, or does it promote a culture of satisficing.

Satisficing is where you select the option that meets the minimum criteria over selecting the best option. If this is true and companies use systems to screen potential employees, does this not potentially promote a system of mediocrity versus greatness? You may be thinking that this sounds crazy. Where is the empirical evidence. I submit to you that it is available through the research of Jim Collins (the author of Good to Great) and Jeffrey Pfeffer (Consultant, author and professor at Stanford University).  Collins research discussed that when hiring, companies who outperformed the market in excess of 15 consecutive years, found attitude and values to be more important than experience. In fact, these companies stated that if a candidate had the right attitude and values, they could train them to do the job. They also stated that if employees did not have experience, they did not have to unlearn any bad habits.

So why don’t more companies pursue this strategy? Probably because they want employees that require minimum training so they can be productive immediately. I can’t help but wonder how many better candidates with higher potential are passed over/ not even considered for someone who has the right experience.  Another consideration is, with all the applicants, how do you sort through and review the resumes without a system? After all, time is money. How do you train someone to recognize experience that would translate to the open position?

As a case in point, I know someone who did change management and Organizational Development work but held an operations role. After the downturn in the economy the individual was laid off. When he began looking for a OD position he was repeatedly told that he was not qualified, because he did not have a background in Human Resources.  Should the department that housed the employee make a difference if the work performed was the same?

Posted in Recruiting | Tagged , | 28 Comments