Stephen's News, Writing, Etc.

This 'blog' is an attempt to get some of my past writing and any current writing on my new site. Many of these are unedited versions of original articles I wrote for The National Post between 2006 & 2009, before they were cut, modified or otherwise tweaked by the editor. There are some other ones too. I hope to eventually include other info and links...

Turn off the PDA for the holidays

The ability to set limits is a requirement for any relationship and work is no exception. At no time is this more important than during the holiday season.

Finding work/life balance is becoming more difficult as the accessibility afforded by technology lets work intrude on personal and family time. As such, holiday time -- be it going away on vacation or finding time with family and friends --is sacred.

Nevertheless, there are managers who insist on reaching out to employees on vacation, with the belief that because they can communicate with them, it's OK to do so and to expect replies. But what is more problematic, is that many workers reply. This can be disappointing to the people they have made commitments to during the holidays and to themselves for not resisting the temptation to be "on-call."

Every year when I ask clients how their holidays went, at least half say something like "it was hardly a vacation -- I did tons of work." Many employees today wear "I am so busy" badges of honour, but surely there are limits. Vacation time should be vacation time.

The solution lies in setting boundaries for others and setting them for yourself. Managers should clearly communicate how the organization operates during the holidays, just telling employees the holiday office hours isn't enough. They must articulate their expectations for completing unfinished work, how the holiday break will affect time-sensitive deliverables, and the extent to which employees are expected to be available for things that come up during the holiday period. As well, managers need to respect their employees time off, recognizing that doing so can enhance job satisfaction and productivity.

But employees also should solicit this information and most importantly, set the limits for intruding on vacation time. This means explicitly telling the boss when you are off limits. Of course, any boundaries you set with your boss, must be adhered to by you, something that seems to be the challenge for employees. Some managers still will reach out during the holidays, but the onus is on employees to enforce the limits they have set. Leave the BlackBerry at home, or at least don't answer it. If you do, then getting pulled into work when you are on vacation is something you will have done to yourself.

 

 

Integrity Begins at Recruitment

Some of the most important lessons in business and management are actually some of the most simple ones because they stem from values and beliefs with which we all are familiar. These include the belief that keeping promises is an important and admirable quality.

Adhering to such principles can help inform almost every aspect of sound management and business practice -- from how we hire and fire, to how we treat clients and customers and everything in between.

The idea we can apply values to how we manage and run businesses is not new. Management consultants have been calling on organizations to use core values and beliefs to articulate their purpose, practices and various other operational elements of their organizations. But the application of values and beliefs to management practices does not have to be as cumbersome as engaging a consultant.

The opportunity for companies to show they can make and keep promises begins at recruitment. Organizations are often called upon to manage the employment brand by painting a pleasant picture of organizations. However, they would be best served by presenting a well-rounded picture -- both the good and the not so good.

That is why job previews are again becoming popular. In a preview, job candidates are given face time with the hiring manager and a few of their prospective colleagues so they can ask the kinds of questions savvy recruits want to ask.

Questions such as "What is it like to work here? What are the hours like? Who do I need to watch out for? What does a typical day look like?" These can help everyone involved make more informed decisions and help organizations keep promises.

One of the top complaints I hear from mid-and entry-level staff is that they were promised things during recruitment that have not come to be. Promises such as: "There is a lot of room to grow here;" "there are tremendous opportunities for people like you here;" or even "we believe in autonomy and continuous learning."

However, often companies cannot fulfill these promises. Broken promises can lead to losing great employees or worse, keeping dissatisfied and disengaged employees.

Employers can also apply the value of promise keeping by actively taking an interest in and developing the careers of employees. When a company promises "opportunities for growth" it could be provided, for example, by something as simple as giving junior employees the chance to be part of a big client meeting they they would not otherwise be part of.

The thing about applying simple, common values to management practices is the more it's done the more integrated the company becomes and the more easily they can arrive at policies, practices and processes. When companies speak of values and act upon them consistently, the more they are seen to have integrity.

The alternative is lack of integrity, and it all begins with how one person applies simple values to the workplace. When an employee is given promises that are not kept, it does not take long for them to do the same thing, and on it goes, right down to the customer.

So what begins as a simple sell-job to a talented customer service representative, can end as a broken promise to a customer, and too many of these instances can end up in lost revenue.

e-mail Mishaps

The idea that the Internet and e-mail in particular has dramatically changed business practices is certainly not new. While everyone can appreciate the benefits e-mail has afforded in terms of swiftness and convenience, there are serious drawbacks. In particular, expressing oneself emotionally in an e-mail can affect the way people in an organization relate to each other and the way the organization communicates with the outside.

Stories of e-mail mishaps are common: There are tales about employees who accidentally send a non-work related e-mail to everyone at their office and, of course, the one about the employee who sends a note with a questionable comment about a boss/ colleague/client and accidentally includes that person.

When you consider everything from marketing, sales and branding all the way to operations and management, electronic communications have made "work" look different from the past. But I would say the most profound way this technology has changed the nature of work lands squarely in how it has affected social relations in the workplace -- from how people communicate inside and outside of organizations to how they manage conflict, gossip and work relationships.

It goes well beyond the Black-Berry culture and its expectation of 24/7 availability and responsiveness. I am speaking specifically of the ways in which e-mail allows us to do things that would not otherwise be possible or even thinkable and the impact that these things can have on the subtle, complicated and fragile nature of interpersonal relationships at work.

One of the most disruptive areas concerns the role e-mail and the Internet have had on employees who at one time would have been the quiet and withdrawn, and perhaps bitterly angry colleague. People who never used their "voice" in any way in the workplace environment now see the seemingly anonymous and immediate nature of e-mail as quick and effective way to get heard, but with frequently disastrous results.

Many of those whose skills does not lie in communicating verbally are discovering (or not) the same skill deficit in writing. In one situation, a vice-president said an employee who had received an e-mail from a supplier that contained a grammatical error was so annoyed she reacted by insulting the sender in an immediate e-mail reply.

It is hard to imagine what would make someone react this way to such a truly minor error, using personal insults and swearing. But it is easy to see how the ability of quick reply is enabled by e-mail. Clearly, the old adage "think before you speak" needs to be modified to include "think before you send."

Not only was this reaction void of an understanding of human relationships, but the sender will not thank her for the grammar lesson and it ignores the fact as an ambassador of her employer she embarrassed the whole organization.

Another example of the rules of e-mail being dangerously less articulate concerns e-mail signatures or sign-offs. One creative employee at a media company has a sign off for his email that is definitely creative, but far from appropriate. It is a quote that says something along the lines of "it only matters how good a creative idea is and if it's good enough no one cares who came up with it, even if it was a brutal serial killer." While employees are free to think and feel what they like, free speech at work, especially when what you say affects your employers and colleagues, should be limited.

So what is the solution? One measure is to develop an e-mail policy, not as a set of rules but as a guideline to help people choose what mode of communication to use and in what circumstances. Teach employees how to use the draft mode, which allows users to think before sending.

Other things such as better judgment and more astute emotional management can be addressed through a commitment to recruitment activities that screen for these skills and a robust training/coaching program that puts social skills at the top of the list before they cost your organization money, people or its reputation.

Whose Fault is it?

The ‘whose fault is it?’ method for dealing with workplace issues has rarely been successful. This is because blame does not bring about actions or solutions, just defensiveness or withdrawal. When we avoid making blame the focus of our problem solving endeavors, we can accept personal responsibility for fixing things. But there are circumstances where this approach still fails, even when we are seemingly bending over backwards to avoid blame. Sometimes it seems like it really is their fault!

Recently, I have been working with a VP at a creative services firm, helping him improve  his relationship with a large and important client. It seemed that although they had been working with this client for several years (with great success), the client had begun to express dissatisfaction - the client felt that the firm no longer understood them. The VP’s initial reaction was that the client is being stubborn, silly, difficult, etc. We decided that he should not blame the client but should instead change his approach, which he did. 

He tried at least three novel approaches to try and change the client’s behavior, all by changing his own behavior. First, he took the role of student asking the client to teach him more about them. Then, he took the teacher approach, helping the client to better articulate their own needs. And finally he took the humble and quiet approach, keeping his head down and reiterating what the client is telling him, no matter what is being said.  None of these approaches have helped, leaving my client with a big question (or two) - could it be that I simply cannot solve this through my own actions? Is it possible that this problem could really be their fault? 

Again, I feel very strongly that blame is nothing less than poison in organizational life, especially when trying to find solutions. This is largely because asking ourselves ‘whose fault is it?’ does not answer the real question, ‘how can we fix this?’ When I reflect on client stories of unsolvable conflict, workplace misery, high turnover or bad morale, in most cases it can be traced back to a culture of blame. For organizations, this kind of culture creates an endless series of witch-hunts, looking to discover who ‘dropped the ball’. But even if we identify the ball-dropper, we discover that this revelation doesn’t really solve anything. For individuals, the blame game creates animosity and kills assertiveness because blaming others takes the onus off of oneself to do anything. 

So if the problem really is the client’s fault - because they are difficult or what have you - what to do? As was the case with my creative VP client, this situation calls for several things. First off, my client went to his boss to explain the problem only after trying his novel approaches first. This way, making the case that the client is difficult would be way easier because he had already tried some novel solutions. Secondly, his boss has to give his employee the benefit of the doubt. At first, the boss thought he could use some help improving this client relationship and so he hired me to help him (certainly not a bad idea). But now, it is clear that the VP has used this help happily and willfully and his boss may need to acknowledge that the client could be the problem. Thirdly, this is a situation where an organization needs to make some choices about who they are - do we ‘put up with’ this difficult client and try to hold on to their business at almost any cost? Or, do we decide that the relationship is not working and end it before they do?

I find that choices of this kind are crucial in the life of any organization, but especially important in client focussed, professional services environments. The problem may in fact be their fault, but how we as individuals or organizations react is our responsibility. 

A good team player needs to be selfish

It always surprises me to see "team-player" listed as a key skill on a resume. As it happens, many people are not team players -- which is OK. All this emphasis on teamwork can make those who must act in their own best interest from time to time look really bad. And while teamwork is great, there are indeed circumstances in one's career where selfishness is the way to go.

One of the most important things to know about teamwork versus selfishness is they are not mutually exclusive. In other words, sometimes looking out for yourself benefits the team. One example is the need to take personal accountability for your own career development. That sometimes means ignoring your knowledge of department fiscal issues and pushing for a raise, or ensuring you get credit for the big win rather than sharing it with a teammate who slacked off. How do these self-interested actions benefit the team? For some people, getting a raise or getting credit for something is fundamental to their job satisfaction. If a team member is unsatisfied with fundamental aspects of his or her job, that person cannot contribute to the department, team or organization at their fullest capacity.

Another example of the benefits of selfishness that is also related to job satisfaction is ensuring your job does not take over your life. Giving up something is certainly required to get exceptional outcomes from work -- long hours, unexpected travel and late nights often accompany superior achievements. But for some employees, there comes a time when giving up personal needs for the benefit of the team must stop. Otherwise, constant giving (and giving-up) can create resentment and bitterness, which clearly will not benefit the team.

Often, one has to act in a seemingly selfish way so everyone can benefit. For example, in one small service organization I work with, a senior officer brought on a senior partner to stave off failure. The partner, who appeared to have complementary skills, was brought in to re-engage the company's talented workforce. After a short time, several key players quit, citing the new guy as the problem. Clients also began indicating this new officer was causing problems. After taking many steps to confront the issues, the chief executive was left with a dilemma -- take this to the company owners and run the risk of being seen as a traitor to his co-chief executive, or say nothing and let the ship sink. Taking the seemingly selfish route is, of course, the best bet. It was the right thing for both the business and for himself--even if it backfired.

At the heart of this issue is this: Selfishness has become an insult, a dirty word, in organizational life. But it is only really bad when the goals are solely power, control, greed or harming others. When we make righteous choices, odds are they are the right ones, even if they may look selfish to others. Teamwork is a great idea, but it should not be the be all and end all of organizational life and productivity. Just like using the oxygen mask in an airplane, sometimes you have to take care of yourself to be able to take care of others.

A Simple Thanks Will Suffice

A senior manager sits quietly in the vice-president’s office, waiting to get an earful from her boss. He is livid because two of their most valuable employees left to work for the competition.

The manager might have known more about why but so many tasks prevented her from checking in how employees were doing. In this business there is simply no time for informal niceties.

She might have known more but the bulk of their contact was spent fixing problems, leaving no time to discuss things like successes. She could have had better insight into what would make them happy, what their ideas and values were, but meetings had to be spent providing direction and instruction. She had hoped to get their input, just as soon as these big projects were off her plate, but they never seemed to be. Now here she sits having to explain what went wrong. She only hears from him when something goes wrong, but she does so many great things. If his approach is poor she may leave too. Is it any wonder what the problem is?

Employee recognition and engagement is a valuable corporate strategy and not merely in stemming turnover. There is value in employee engagement far beyond retaining valued employees.

While engaging and recognizing employee contributions has a great impact, a far more profound impact is not doing so. Lack of recognition produces one of the most menacing of organizational outcomes — people who are paid 100% of their salary but working at only 60% of their capacity, and management not recognizing it.

Common complaints by employees include, “The boss only pays attention when there is something wrong.” “I can do 50 things well and I never hear about it. But when something goes wrong, I hear about it excessively.” Then there is, “I wouldn’t mind negative feedback so much if it was balanced with positive,” or “I care so little about this work because I am bored and uninvolved.” The lack of recognition or engagement can be a major cause of dissatisfaction, resentment and high employee turnover.

To make matters worse, managers and supervisors frequently misdiagnose a perceived lack of engagement as a bad attitude or a lack of skills. Such assessments can lead supervisors to try to improve performance through accusations, heavy-handed management tactics and even threats of termination. The problem is such approaches rarely work, more often backfiring by disengaging employees further. The problem lies not with the employee but with the skills of managers and supervisors, as well as with the organization’s approach to recognition and engagement.

Clearly, one major responsibility of managers is to manage people. Managing people does not begin with managing policies, ideas, paper or even processes. It begins with the actions of management, not with those of employees. For example, managers find that when they do something as simple as check in midway through a project, they discover problems that can be fixed before the deadline. But because managers feel it is not their responsibility to check in, they miss out on the chance to impact results beyond putting out fires. They are willing to let things go wrong because they don’t feel they should have to be the ones to set things right. This approach is not proactive or responsible.

Ultimately, recognition is about managers seeing beyond their own interests and recognizing that the ability to count on staff is not just about trading work for a paycheque. People are dynamic, complicated and have needs that transcend exchanging work for money. Many employees want to be involved, they want a sense of purpose and knowledge of their results and to work with people they like. The key in managing such needs is involvement and engagement. Little things such as asking an employee’s opinion, explaining the objectives of a project so he or she understands its importance and informing him or her of the work’s outcome are simple ways to enhance involvement.

Engagement is largely about ensuring employees’ butts and heads are in the same place. Lack of recognition can prevent this engagement. When people are not recognized for their accomplishments or are ignored by their supervisors, they become pre-occupied with what they are not getting. This preoccupation will take energy and time from their jobs. As well, this dissatisfaction may rub off on others through gossip and complaints. Employees will confide in peers, other managers and even clients when they are disengaged. This can result in a bad impression of the organization, impacting its business and ability to attract new talent.

So what is the solution? While many organizations spend time and money developing formal employee recognition programs and engagement procedures, the most successful methods are simple and inexpensive. In fact, the most crucial ones usually cost nothing. For employees, recognition covers everything from having their work and efforts noticed to the seemingly mundane greeting or asking about their family, weekend or interests. Often, in a frenetic work environment managers forgo such simple forms of recognition. Also many workplaces emphasize problem-solving, so little time is spent talking to employees about their successes, positive outcomes and their lives outside work.

Monetary rewards should not be offered for meeting a tight deadline or solving a problem. After all, such tasks are part of the job. However, employees should be recognized for meeting that challenge. Often a verbal thank you does the trick. If a manager is not informally thanking his or her staff at least two or three times a month, it’s a missed opportunity to motivate employees. While simple forms of recognition may seem unnecessary, the absence of such gestures sends a strong message to employees that affects commitment, loyalty and level of engagement.

Some managers feel that because they don’t need recognition, or never get it, others don’t need it either. Such thinking is problematic. People are different, and being a good leader is about adapting to the diverse needs of followers. People should be managed based on what is, not what should be. If a manager experiences a lack of recognition, he or she should learn from experience and offer employees what he or she has missed out on.

While managers may not hear about the absence of recognition gestures, they can be sure the topic is brought up around the proverbial water cooler. Employee perceptions and gossip can produce untrue assumptions about a boss’s character that could harm a reputation and a career.

Far too many senior managers use such words as “collaborative,” “cooperative” and “teamwork,” but given the opportunity to exercise these values, they default to telling employees what will be done. People are more likely to buy in to initiatives and actions they are involved in than those dictated to them. That’s the true value of engagement — it creates buy-in, commitment, loyalty and excellence because people want to be part of what they do.

This can be as simple as asking what the employee thinks or for suggestions. Again, the pace of organizational life makes it seem more efficient to tell people what to do. Talking teamwork but not doing so can disengage employees so that any time saved by dictating will be lost in employee disinterest.

Sometimes, managers think employees’ views have no value and they know best. However, asking employees what they think can raise a manager’s credibility. Just because you ask, does not mean you have to do what employees suggest — the magic is considering others’ opinions.

If you want employees to stick around, try simple approaches. In the best case, you might find employees provide a new perspective; at worst, you will be seen as thoughtful and considerate.