Bob is a service technician. He drives a company truck. He drove it for several days after he noticed the check engine light blinking. Finally, the engine seized up. A repair bill that might have been a few hundred dollars became several thousand dollars due to Bob's lack of initiative. Bob had no good answer for why he didn't report the blinking light when he first noticed it.
These are the kinds of things that drive small business owners batty. My employees can see the piece of paper on the floor just like I can, why don't they pick it up?
Initiative or proactivity is an interesting topic. Turns out there are two possible explanations for why Bob let the truck blow up.
First, proactivity is a personality or behavioral trait similar to extraversion or conscientiousness. Some people score high in proactivity and others low. In Bob's case, if he scored low on an assessment that measures proactivity, he might be as likely to let his personal vehicle blow up as he did his company vehicle. If this is the case, no amount of yelling or disciplinary action is going to make Bob more proactive. He might notify someone the next time the check engine light is blinking, but he's just as likely to miss a new opportunity to proactively contribute as he was the last.
Second, organizations might be inadvertently managing initiative right out of individuals. How can this happen?
Jane is on the phone with an angry client. There is no specific policy to address this particular client's complaint. Jane proactively offers the client a solution that is "outside-the-box." The customer is happy with the outcome but Jane's manager is furious. Jane gets reprimanded.
Joe is in the field and encounters a situation he's never run into before. Rather than call his supervisor, he attempts to solve the problem himself. Turns out his effort to solve the problem actually made it a little worse and cost the company a modest amount to correct. Joe gets an earful from his supervisor for not getting permission before attempting the non-traditional fix.
In both of these cases, Jane and Joe were proactive and showed initiative. In both cases, their initiative was met with punishment. If this happens often enough, both Jane and Joe will eventually decide that it's not worth taking initiative.
So, the very managers who are asking me why their employees aren't proactive might be the very managers who tend to question every decision their employees make and create a culture where it's safer for employees to do nothing than to do something before they've been told to. In other words, they become passive because they've been trained to be passive.
If hiring proactive individuals is truly an important predictor of success for certain roles in your organization, then you should measure for this during the interview and selection process. If proactivity or initiative is not a significant success factor for your organization, and what you really want are people who are compliant and do only what they're told, then you'll need to accept some mistakes of omission because you're not likely to get many mistakes of commission.
Tuesday, February 13, 2018
Tuesday, January 9, 2018
Time for a New Employee Handbook?
Wise employers understand that employee handbooks have several purposes:
First, they are marketing documents. Your organization likely has marketing fliers used to promote your products and services. Those fliers were designed to influence potential buyers to have a positive image of your brand and build potential buyers' confidence in your organization's ability to solve a problem or somehow make their life better. Your employee handbook should do the same for new hires - inspire confidence in your organization as a fair and good place to work.
I run across some organizations who have invested thousands on slick marketing material but their employee handbook looks like a Frankenstein document. Sometimes they are not branded, they have multiple fonts and font sizes, each section reads like it was written by a different author (because they were cut and paste from different sources), and it's chock full of legal-sounding terms and phrases designed to intimidate the new hire. Nothing says, "welcome to the company" more than a document in which every other sentence ends in, "..may result in termination."
Second, they are guidebooks. A good handbook shows employees where the boundaries are. It defines the behavior that is expected and rewarded and behaviors that might get you in trouble. It's not a substitute for managing, and supervisors and managers shouldn't expect to have a written policy to back up their every decision. For example, I see some handbooks where the dress and appearance section is over a page long as the company has codified every violation that's ever occurred. For most organizations, just saying "dress appropriately for your position" and "management reserves the right to send you home..." is probably enough. If specialty shoes or apparel are required, it's appropriate to mention those in the handbook, but defining the difference between unapproved flip flops and approved sandals in a handbook for 50 employees seems silly - and will be perceived as silly by new hires.
Third, they are for compliance. There are some policies that simply need to be in a handbook. For example, if Paula Deen's restaurant group had an employee handbook with a well-written harassment policy that communicated what employees should do if harassed back in 2012, she would be millions of dollars wealthier today. Government agencies and the courts expect a company to have certain policies in place covering discrimination, harassment, at-will employment and several other staples of labor law compliance. Some once-popular policies have been found to be out of compliance in recent years, so it's important to purge those from your handbook.
If you handbook is more than three years' old, if it was borrowed and repurposed from another organization, if it doesn't reflect your brand and present a positive first impression of your company, if it has more pages than your company has employees, or if sounds like a real estate contract, it might be time for a handbook refresh.
First, they are marketing documents. Your organization likely has marketing fliers used to promote your products and services. Those fliers were designed to influence potential buyers to have a positive image of your brand and build potential buyers' confidence in your organization's ability to solve a problem or somehow make their life better. Your employee handbook should do the same for new hires - inspire confidence in your organization as a fair and good place to work.
I run across some organizations who have invested thousands on slick marketing material but their employee handbook looks like a Frankenstein document. Sometimes they are not branded, they have multiple fonts and font sizes, each section reads like it was written by a different author (because they were cut and paste from different sources), and it's chock full of legal-sounding terms and phrases designed to intimidate the new hire. Nothing says, "welcome to the company" more than a document in which every other sentence ends in, "..may result in termination."
Second, they are guidebooks. A good handbook shows employees where the boundaries are. It defines the behavior that is expected and rewarded and behaviors that might get you in trouble. It's not a substitute for managing, and supervisors and managers shouldn't expect to have a written policy to back up their every decision. For example, I see some handbooks where the dress and appearance section is over a page long as the company has codified every violation that's ever occurred. For most organizations, just saying "dress appropriately for your position" and "management reserves the right to send you home..." is probably enough. If specialty shoes or apparel are required, it's appropriate to mention those in the handbook, but defining the difference between unapproved flip flops and approved sandals in a handbook for 50 employees seems silly - and will be perceived as silly by new hires.
Third, they are for compliance. There are some policies that simply need to be in a handbook. For example, if Paula Deen's restaurant group had an employee handbook with a well-written harassment policy that communicated what employees should do if harassed back in 2012, she would be millions of dollars wealthier today. Government agencies and the courts expect a company to have certain policies in place covering discrimination, harassment, at-will employment and several other staples of labor law compliance. Some once-popular policies have been found to be out of compliance in recent years, so it's important to purge those from your handbook.
If you handbook is more than three years' old, if it was borrowed and repurposed from another organization, if it doesn't reflect your brand and present a positive first impression of your company, if it has more pages than your company has employees, or if sounds like a real estate contract, it might be time for a handbook refresh.
HR Priorities for 2018
Each January I publish a list of HR priorities for small and mid-sized companies for the coming year. Here is this year's list:
1. Harassment Policy and Training - sexual harassment has been a dominant feature on newscasts over the past several months. Like me, you've probably been shocked by some of the allegations against prominent celebrities and politicians. The take-away for small and mid-sized businesses is that they should have two things in order: First, they should make sure they have a good policy. Read yours and confirm that it covers what it should and is very clear about what employees should do if they believe they are being harassed. Second, they should make sure all of their foremen, leads, supervisors and managers have received documented training on what harassment is (and isn't) and what to do if they encounter it.
2. Classification of Exempt/Non-exempt - if you are located in North Carolina, 2018 signals the beginning of a new enforcement division which represents a consolidation of resources at the state level specifically to combat misclassification of employees. Summarizing what one labor attorney told me: "in the old days, if one agency determined you were out of compliance, they didn't necessarily communicate that with other agencies, but with this new enforcement group, you're more likely to get hit with fines from multiple agencies for a single infraction." That might mean fines from the wage and hour division for failure to pay overtime plus fines from the taxing authorities for failure to withhold the proper taxes, all from a single investigation. Even if you're not in NC, lack of compliance with exempt/non-exempt can be an expensive mistake.
3. Classification of Employee/Contractor - many small companies find it tempting to bring on workers as 1099 contractors rather than employees. It's less hassle for the company and the workers like it because their weekly check is bigger. But it's a risky strategy. The government discourages the use of 1099 because it doesn't get its tax money on payday, and may not get it at all. The fines and penalties associated with misclassification of employees as contractors are among the stiffest an employer can face. The threat of prison is even on the table for extreme cases.
4. Social Media policy - the National Labor Relations Board under the Obama administration took a very rigid stance against social media policies that they felt had the potential to silence speech protected by the NLRA. That Board, now lead by a Trump appointee, recently announced a softening of that position. But it still makes sense for organizations to ensure that they have a social media policy that protects the companies interests while also remaining in compliance with even a narrow interpretation of the NLRA.
It can be a costly mistake for business owners to assume that since a more business-friendly administration has replaced a more labor-friendly administration, that investigators and auditors from state and federal agencies are going to turn a blind eye to violations such as these. The rules are still the rules and business owners are better served being compliant.
If you need assistance with these or any HR initiatives in 2018, The Davidson Group is here to help.
1. Harassment Policy and Training - sexual harassment has been a dominant feature on newscasts over the past several months. Like me, you've probably been shocked by some of the allegations against prominent celebrities and politicians. The take-away for small and mid-sized businesses is that they should have two things in order: First, they should make sure they have a good policy. Read yours and confirm that it covers what it should and is very clear about what employees should do if they believe they are being harassed. Second, they should make sure all of their foremen, leads, supervisors and managers have received documented training on what harassment is (and isn't) and what to do if they encounter it.
2. Classification of Exempt/Non-exempt - if you are located in North Carolina, 2018 signals the beginning of a new enforcement division which represents a consolidation of resources at the state level specifically to combat misclassification of employees. Summarizing what one labor attorney told me: "in the old days, if one agency determined you were out of compliance, they didn't necessarily communicate that with other agencies, but with this new enforcement group, you're more likely to get hit with fines from multiple agencies for a single infraction." That might mean fines from the wage and hour division for failure to pay overtime plus fines from the taxing authorities for failure to withhold the proper taxes, all from a single investigation. Even if you're not in NC, lack of compliance with exempt/non-exempt can be an expensive mistake.
3. Classification of Employee/Contractor - many small companies find it tempting to bring on workers as 1099 contractors rather than employees. It's less hassle for the company and the workers like it because their weekly check is bigger. But it's a risky strategy. The government discourages the use of 1099 because it doesn't get its tax money on payday, and may not get it at all. The fines and penalties associated with misclassification of employees as contractors are among the stiffest an employer can face. The threat of prison is even on the table for extreme cases.
4. Social Media policy - the National Labor Relations Board under the Obama administration took a very rigid stance against social media policies that they felt had the potential to silence speech protected by the NLRA. That Board, now lead by a Trump appointee, recently announced a softening of that position. But it still makes sense for organizations to ensure that they have a social media policy that protects the companies interests while also remaining in compliance with even a narrow interpretation of the NLRA.
It can be a costly mistake for business owners to assume that since a more business-friendly administration has replaced a more labor-friendly administration, that investigators and auditors from state and federal agencies are going to turn a blind eye to violations such as these. The rules are still the rules and business owners are better served being compliant.
If you need assistance with these or any HR initiatives in 2018, The Davidson Group is here to help.
Wednesday, December 13, 2017
Can't Find Good People?
Every service company I speak with is concerned about their ability to find good, quality workers. In an environment where the competition for talent is fierce, which companies are going to be most successful? What's the recipe for winning?
Let's start with the basic myth. When I'm training foremen and supervisors, I'll often ask them if today's young people have a poorer work ethic than their generation had. Almost unanimously they say "yes!"
They're shocked when I tell them every generation believes this and every generation is wrong. I heard the "young people today don't want to work" thing when I was a helper on construction sites in the 1970s. Engineers building the Taj Mahal in the 1640s were saying it, as were stone masons building the pyramids 4,000 years ago.
What is true is that some individuals have a stronger work ethic than others (in every generation). In periods of relatively low unemployment, we run across more candidates with lower motivation and weaker work-ethic than periods of higher unemployment rates.
What is also true is that work ethic and motivation is not all genetic. Work ethic can be learned and motivation can be tapped. Which leads us back to the question, which companies are going to win in this economy?
The service companies that are going to win are not the companies that invest in finding that secret supply of excellent workers that no one else can find. The companies that win are going to be the ones that find ways to be successful with less than ideal candidates.
The service companies that are going to win aren't simply complaining about the current talent pool, they're building systems that help a candidate who isn't an exact fit to have a reasonable chance at becoming successful. They're building on-boarding, training and feedback systems as well as mentoring programs and career paths to keep people who aren't natural-born stars to build a skill set, become engaged and remain on-track.
The service companies that are going to win aren't going to simply outspend everyone else on talent. If your culture sucks (read: your supervisors and foremen treat people like they're disposable), it doesn't matter how much money you throw at compensation, you'll eventually lose to the company that knows how to build a culture that workers embrace. If you can get $16 of value out of a $13 employee, you're going to handily outperform the company that's having to spend $23 to get that same $16 of value.
The service companies that are going to win will say "thanks" and "well done" a lot. The service companies that are going to struggle are going to generally ignore good performance as something that's expected and spend their energy berating poor performance.
The service companies that are going to win are going to be employers of choice who build their total rewards programs around what their workers really want versus what they'd prefer to give them. (Think: maybe an afternoon off with pay rather than a gift card?).
The service companies that are going to win are going to win with less than ideal candidates. If your organization is determined to find plug-and-play, immediately productive workers that don't need to be trained or managed, you're going to spend a lot of time recruiting.
Let's start with the basic myth. When I'm training foremen and supervisors, I'll often ask them if today's young people have a poorer work ethic than their generation had. Almost unanimously they say "yes!"
They're shocked when I tell them every generation believes this and every generation is wrong. I heard the "young people today don't want to work" thing when I was a helper on construction sites in the 1970s. Engineers building the Taj Mahal in the 1640s were saying it, as were stone masons building the pyramids 4,000 years ago.
What is true is that some individuals have a stronger work ethic than others (in every generation). In periods of relatively low unemployment, we run across more candidates with lower motivation and weaker work-ethic than periods of higher unemployment rates.
What is also true is that work ethic and motivation is not all genetic. Work ethic can be learned and motivation can be tapped. Which leads us back to the question, which companies are going to win in this economy?
The service companies that are going to win are not the companies that invest in finding that secret supply of excellent workers that no one else can find. The companies that win are going to be the ones that find ways to be successful with less than ideal candidates.
The service companies that are going to win aren't simply complaining about the current talent pool, they're building systems that help a candidate who isn't an exact fit to have a reasonable chance at becoming successful. They're building on-boarding, training and feedback systems as well as mentoring programs and career paths to keep people who aren't natural-born stars to build a skill set, become engaged and remain on-track.
The service companies that are going to win aren't going to simply outspend everyone else on talent. If your culture sucks (read: your supervisors and foremen treat people like they're disposable), it doesn't matter how much money you throw at compensation, you'll eventually lose to the company that knows how to build a culture that workers embrace. If you can get $16 of value out of a $13 employee, you're going to handily outperform the company that's having to spend $23 to get that same $16 of value.
The service companies that are going to win will say "thanks" and "well done" a lot. The service companies that are going to struggle are going to generally ignore good performance as something that's expected and spend their energy berating poor performance.
The service companies that are going to win are going to be employers of choice who build their total rewards programs around what their workers really want versus what they'd prefer to give them. (Think: maybe an afternoon off with pay rather than a gift card?).
The service companies that are going to win are going to win with less than ideal candidates. If your organization is determined to find plug-and-play, immediately productive workers that don't need to be trained or managed, you're going to spend a lot of time recruiting.
What Matt Lauer Means to Your Business
There has been an avalanche of sexual harassment and misconduct claims making the headlines in recent weeks. I'm sure that a lot of politicians and public figures are sitting on pins and needles hoping their name doesn't make the news. This is good news for employees, mostly but not exclusively women who have tolerated much more of this type of behavior than they ever should have. Employers of all sizes will likely have more of these claims to process and more judgement calls to make as victims feel empowered to come forward.
With regard to the Matt Lauer situation, NBC is going to be facing the same questions your organization would be facing, albeit much more publicly - what is your policy, what kinds of training did you have in place, who knew about the behavior and what happened when management found out?
Here are some tips for any organization that is concerned about their own vulnerability to situations like NBCs current predicament:
1. Review your harassment policies. You likely have boilerplate language in your handbook. Nothing wrong with that, just make sure the language is clear and especially make sure that your employees know whom they may contact in the event they are harassed in any manner, including sexually. Make sure that there are several avenues for reporting the harassment, don't limit them to chain of command. Many Davidson Group clients include our phone number as an outside third-party option for employees to contact.
2. Train your managers and supervisors. Now is a great time to offer training to your managers and supervisors on what is and isn't harassment, what to do if they suspect harassment, and what to do if one of their team members reports harassment to them.
3. Train your employees. Now is a great time to remind your employees what types of behaviors are not acceptable in the workplace, what to do if they are victims of those types of behaviors, and what might happen to them if they are the one doing the harassing.
4. Treat all accusations seriously, investigate thoroughly and apply consequences consistently. This is the hard part because harassment claims are so personal and can vary so much in nature and substance. The very clear-cut cases, like when the behavior is caught on video or when there are multiple witnesses, are not as difficult. But sometimes these situations are much grayer. In some cases it may not even be clear that something happened at all. With these we can find ourselves torn between supporting the accuser and being fair to the accused.
We can learn something from observing the political personalities that have been in the news recently. What I have observed is when a figure considered a political opponent stands accused, it's portrayed as outrageous behavior that needs to be dealt with sternly and immediately, but when someone considered a political ally stands accused, we are urged not to rush to judgement.
How does this translate to your company? When the accused is a mediocre performer whose contributions are easily replaced, it's easy to stand with the accuser. When the accused is a rain-maker who is not so easily replaced, it's tempting to impugn the accuser or to raise our burden of proof requirements.
It takes courage of leadership to do the right thing, even if it temporarily hurts the organization. NBC will probably find that it would have been better off addressing the situation with Matt Lauer after the first credible complaint versus what they are now facing. It is the organization's responsibility to treat every case with the same level of seriousness, whether the accused or accuser is a low level employee or an executive, and attempt to apply consequences for bad behavior that are consistent and appropriate.
If your organization could use some help with developing policies, delivering training, conducting an investigation, or helping with a messy situation, contact The Davidson Group and we'd be happy to help.
With regard to the Matt Lauer situation, NBC is going to be facing the same questions your organization would be facing, albeit much more publicly - what is your policy, what kinds of training did you have in place, who knew about the behavior and what happened when management found out?
Here are some tips for any organization that is concerned about their own vulnerability to situations like NBCs current predicament:
1. Review your harassment policies. You likely have boilerplate language in your handbook. Nothing wrong with that, just make sure the language is clear and especially make sure that your employees know whom they may contact in the event they are harassed in any manner, including sexually. Make sure that there are several avenues for reporting the harassment, don't limit them to chain of command. Many Davidson Group clients include our phone number as an outside third-party option for employees to contact.
2. Train your managers and supervisors. Now is a great time to offer training to your managers and supervisors on what is and isn't harassment, what to do if they suspect harassment, and what to do if one of their team members reports harassment to them.
3. Train your employees. Now is a great time to remind your employees what types of behaviors are not acceptable in the workplace, what to do if they are victims of those types of behaviors, and what might happen to them if they are the one doing the harassing.
4. Treat all accusations seriously, investigate thoroughly and apply consequences consistently. This is the hard part because harassment claims are so personal and can vary so much in nature and substance. The very clear-cut cases, like when the behavior is caught on video or when there are multiple witnesses, are not as difficult. But sometimes these situations are much grayer. In some cases it may not even be clear that something happened at all. With these we can find ourselves torn between supporting the accuser and being fair to the accused.
We can learn something from observing the political personalities that have been in the news recently. What I have observed is when a figure considered a political opponent stands accused, it's portrayed as outrageous behavior that needs to be dealt with sternly and immediately, but when someone considered a political ally stands accused, we are urged not to rush to judgement.
How does this translate to your company? When the accused is a mediocre performer whose contributions are easily replaced, it's easy to stand with the accuser. When the accused is a rain-maker who is not so easily replaced, it's tempting to impugn the accuser or to raise our burden of proof requirements.
It takes courage of leadership to do the right thing, even if it temporarily hurts the organization. NBC will probably find that it would have been better off addressing the situation with Matt Lauer after the first credible complaint versus what they are now facing. It is the organization's responsibility to treat every case with the same level of seriousness, whether the accused or accuser is a low level employee or an executive, and attempt to apply consequences for bad behavior that are consistent and appropriate.
If your organization could use some help with developing policies, delivering training, conducting an investigation, or helping with a messy situation, contact The Davidson Group and we'd be happy to help.
Wednesday, November 8, 2017
Progressive Discipline Policy?
Our high school band director gave out demerits to students who misbehaved or failed to follow a band rule. For a couple of years I held the record for the most demerits ever accumulated in a single semester. Interestingly, I was among the very best musicians in that band. But I didn't particularly like that teacher, I got pleasure from getting under his skin, and was not particularly concerned with possible negative outcomes associated with the accumulation of demerits.
Well-defined progressive discipline policies are popular in some circles and I run across them frequently when reviewing or updating employee handbooks. 1st occurrence=Verbal warning, 2nd occurrence=written warning, then suspension... If you have a policy like this, here are some thoughts on progressive discipline programs in general:
1. The larger the organization the more it benefits from a defined progressive discipline program. If you have 5,000 employees and hundreds of managers and supervisors spread across multiple locations, ensuring consistency in the way employees are treated is an important risk management and cultural component.
2. The smaller the organization the less it benefits from a defined progressive discipline program. If you have 40 employees and you know them all by name and are based in a right-to-work state, why would you tie yourself down to a formal policy that may make it difficult for you to get rid of a problem employee?
3. Virtually all research I've ever read indicates that positive reinforcement is more powerful and longer lasting than punishment in changing behavior. Demerits, occurrences, and other forms of documenting negative behavior are attempts at deterrence that often fail to change behaviors at all, and if they do, it often isn't for very long.
Recognizing and/or rewarding behavior you want is going to be more effective over time than spending your energy punishing behavior you don't want. So, rather than giving demerits, occurrences or other forms of documentation for missing the target, try doing the opposite - some type of acknowledgement that an employee is doing what you want.
One example might be that all employees who meet some defined performance goal are eligible for a drawing (rather than all who fail get an occurrence). Pursuit of this recognition will motivate some employees, but at the worst it'll be neutral to the others. For those it motivates, it'll be more motivating than a desire to avoid an occurrence and for those to whom it's neutral, it won't motivate them in the wrong direction. (Yes, some employees derive pleasure from seeing their supervisor frustrated like I did with my band director, and some enjoy seeing how much they can get away with).
For you managers who say, "why should I give a prize to someone for simply doing what I hired them to do?" I ask, "why continue to use methods that don't work as well when the science is clear regarding how humans respond to punishment as a motivator?"
Does this mean that you don't document bad behavior? Of course not. If your goal is to win unemployment hearings you must demonstrate that you made a good faith effort to communicate your expectations and the employee failed. But there may be times when you have an employee who behaves like I did in high school and doesn't want to row in the same direction as everyone else. There's no need to be trapped by your progressive discipline policy. My band director should have simply kicked me out of the band, or he should have made more of an effort to engage me. If you're in a right-to-work state, you should do the same with your problem child. Your "A" players will appreciate it.
Well-defined progressive discipline policies are popular in some circles and I run across them frequently when reviewing or updating employee handbooks. 1st occurrence=Verbal warning, 2nd occurrence=written warning, then suspension... If you have a policy like this, here are some thoughts on progressive discipline programs in general:
1. The larger the organization the more it benefits from a defined progressive discipline program. If you have 5,000 employees and hundreds of managers and supervisors spread across multiple locations, ensuring consistency in the way employees are treated is an important risk management and cultural component.
2. The smaller the organization the less it benefits from a defined progressive discipline program. If you have 40 employees and you know them all by name and are based in a right-to-work state, why would you tie yourself down to a formal policy that may make it difficult for you to get rid of a problem employee?
3. Virtually all research I've ever read indicates that positive reinforcement is more powerful and longer lasting than punishment in changing behavior. Demerits, occurrences, and other forms of documenting negative behavior are attempts at deterrence that often fail to change behaviors at all, and if they do, it often isn't for very long.
Recognizing and/or rewarding behavior you want is going to be more effective over time than spending your energy punishing behavior you don't want. So, rather than giving demerits, occurrences or other forms of documentation for missing the target, try doing the opposite - some type of acknowledgement that an employee is doing what you want.
One example might be that all employees who meet some defined performance goal are eligible for a drawing (rather than all who fail get an occurrence). Pursuit of this recognition will motivate some employees, but at the worst it'll be neutral to the others. For those it motivates, it'll be more motivating than a desire to avoid an occurrence and for those to whom it's neutral, it won't motivate them in the wrong direction. (Yes, some employees derive pleasure from seeing their supervisor frustrated like I did with my band director, and some enjoy seeing how much they can get away with).
For you managers who say, "why should I give a prize to someone for simply doing what I hired them to do?" I ask, "why continue to use methods that don't work as well when the science is clear regarding how humans respond to punishment as a motivator?"
Does this mean that you don't document bad behavior? Of course not. If your goal is to win unemployment hearings you must demonstrate that you made a good faith effort to communicate your expectations and the employee failed. But there may be times when you have an employee who behaves like I did in high school and doesn't want to row in the same direction as everyone else. There's no need to be trapped by your progressive discipline policy. My band director should have simply kicked me out of the band, or he should have made more of an effort to engage me. If you're in a right-to-work state, you should do the same with your problem child. Your "A" players will appreciate it.
Overworking "A" Players
Jane manages both Bob and Stan. Bob does high quality work and never says "no" when asked to take-on an extra work project. Stan, on the other hand, is just as capable as Bob, also does high quality work, but sends out clear verbal and non-verbal signals of resistance when asked to do anything extra. When Jane has an important project with a quick turnaround, who is she going to ask? Bob, of course.
This is the plight of the Bobs of the world. They are punished for being good, efficient workers with a good attitude. The Stans of the world learn that they can be rewarded by being bristly, prickly or defiant. Managers who'd just as soon not have to hear the excuses or experience the huffs and the roll of the eyes will go to Bob just to avoid dealing with Stan.
Fortunately for managers like Jane, the Bobs of the world often score high S on the DISC profile and high S individuals often choose to stay with the devil they know rather than risk the devil they don't. Unfortunately for managers like Jane, high S individuals don't often show their emotions in an outwardly demonstrative way, so Bob could be highly frustrated but simply doesn't show it. When Bob really does reach the end of his rope, Jane is usually caught totally off-guard and is dismayed that she lost Bob and is stuck with Stan.
This is the dilemma facing conflict avoidant managers. By going to their Bobs over-and-over to avoid dealing with their Stans, the eventually end up with a department made up mostly of Stans.
The source of the managers' dilemma is the manager focusing too much on him or herself. When Bob submits his resignation, no doubt Jane's first thought will be, "how could you do this to me?" It's this same thinking that got her into this situation to begin with - "I don't want to deal with Stan."
Jane could avoid this by focusing more on her team than herself. "I have this important project with a quick deadline. Bob will do it, but I went to Bob last time. Stan will huff and puff to try to get out of it, but I'm not going to reward that behavior - it's Stan's project!"
Being willing to engage in difficult conversations and standing your ground to protect your "A" players is part of a manager's responsibility. It's why Jane was promoted. Avoiding conflict hurts both the team and the organization - and ultimately the manager, herself. Another question you might ask when facing this dilemma - "who would I rather have leave the organization - Bob or Stan?" If the answer is Stan, then why are you coddling his counterproductive work behaviors?
And who knows, if you refuse to reward Stan's resistance, he might get it - and morph into a new Bob. Now you have two Bobs on your team.
This is the plight of the Bobs of the world. They are punished for being good, efficient workers with a good attitude. The Stans of the world learn that they can be rewarded by being bristly, prickly or defiant. Managers who'd just as soon not have to hear the excuses or experience the huffs and the roll of the eyes will go to Bob just to avoid dealing with Stan.
Fortunately for managers like Jane, the Bobs of the world often score high S on the DISC profile and high S individuals often choose to stay with the devil they know rather than risk the devil they don't. Unfortunately for managers like Jane, high S individuals don't often show their emotions in an outwardly demonstrative way, so Bob could be highly frustrated but simply doesn't show it. When Bob really does reach the end of his rope, Jane is usually caught totally off-guard and is dismayed that she lost Bob and is stuck with Stan.
This is the dilemma facing conflict avoidant managers. By going to their Bobs over-and-over to avoid dealing with their Stans, the eventually end up with a department made up mostly of Stans.
The source of the managers' dilemma is the manager focusing too much on him or herself. When Bob submits his resignation, no doubt Jane's first thought will be, "how could you do this to me?" It's this same thinking that got her into this situation to begin with - "I don't want to deal with Stan."
Jane could avoid this by focusing more on her team than herself. "I have this important project with a quick deadline. Bob will do it, but I went to Bob last time. Stan will huff and puff to try to get out of it, but I'm not going to reward that behavior - it's Stan's project!"
Being willing to engage in difficult conversations and standing your ground to protect your "A" players is part of a manager's responsibility. It's why Jane was promoted. Avoiding conflict hurts both the team and the organization - and ultimately the manager, herself. Another question you might ask when facing this dilemma - "who would I rather have leave the organization - Bob or Stan?" If the answer is Stan, then why are you coddling his counterproductive work behaviors?
And who knows, if you refuse to reward Stan's resistance, he might get it - and morph into a new Bob. Now you have two Bobs on your team.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)