Happy To Be Here?

 

[Image courtesy of Grantland Cartoons]

I’m writing this blog from Jury Room 1517 in Lower Manhattan.  As it required the threat of a monetary penalty and jail to get me here, it got me thinking about what it takes to get your employees to come to the office every day, and then what it takes to get them to work productively.  Unfortunately, I think it’s against the law to imprison workers in your company’s basement, and I also don’t think you can fine employees for slacking off (or can you?), so motivation just to do the ordinary drudgery of daily work life is a hot topic.

Too often the conversations I hear about motivation are more related to luxury gifts and travel for sales-oriented positions than the less glamorous task of waking up in time to get to work by nine, turning in weekly assignments, surviving an awful cubicle mate, and making it to the end of each pay cycle with a direct deposit check, and not the headache many of your workers also have come to expect at regularly occurring intervals. 

The problem is--to be honest--you don’t have much to offer your workforce these days.  A good game for you to play at your next leadership seminar is for executives to take turns making the case in five sentences or less for why an average employee (median salary for your company, mid-level position, let’s say) would want to stick with you for another year. After participants articulate what they see as the employee value proposition, have them split up in pairs to role-play. One will be the company leader and the other will be an employee who can’t bear the daily grind at low wages any longer.  The ones playing the washed-out worker should be instructed, as much for their own enlightenment as for the sake of giving their role-play partner practice, to try as hard as they can to make the argument against staying.  What are you going to do if the only counter-argument your leader can offer is that the unhappy employee isn’t likely to find anything better, or anything at all perhaps, in our tanked and (still) tanking economy?  And can you imagine how that anti-value proposition will sound when put into words?  “Well, Helen, I’d hate to see you go. And, um, you know, I don’t know if you’ve heard, but the economy happens to be tanking, and I don’t know what else you’ll find.”   How motivating!

Then, what happens when your leaders try to be impressive in their counter-argument, and offer some hope, when, truthfully, they haven’t thought out any hopeful points that don’t consist of lying?  At the same leadership session in which they practice delivering their pitch to a saddened workforce (thereby also maybe for the first time thinking about it themselves), a good second, up-the-ante game for them to play is to come up with concrete improvements that put action behind the value pitch. Your executives can’t offer them raises, but can they can offer them flex-time so an employee suffering from consolidation-of-workload weekend assignments can automatically be granted at least one work day off, or one work day to leave early, or work from home?  Could trainers offer them development opportunities that involve little to no extra cost such as finally organizing that mentoring program you’ve been talking about?  How about a monthly department or company-wide potluck lunch to add some enjoyment to their work life?   Taking the time to ask them again (if not for the first time) what kind of assignments they like best, and which they would get rid of if they could magically eliminate them from their job roles, also is worth a try. You might not be able to promise them eradication of evil budget reports, market analysis, or Excel spreadsheet busy work, but you can try organizing workloads more intelligently. I’ll bet there are many employees on your payroll doing hated tasks another worker a few cubicles away enjoys, or at least doesn’t loathe nearly as much.

Coming up with the action behind the words makes it less likely your leaders will have to point to installation of the new, softer intra-office lighting as evidence that they care.  The miniature pumpkins the company got through a bartering agreement with a local grocery store, and which you distributed as Halloween gifts (in lieu of holiday bonuses) also isn’t likely to make your case for a work life worth keeping.

At the beginning of my jury duty today, we were shown a film about the history of “justice” systems that looked all the way back to the Middle-Ages, and beyond, to show us how good we have it today.  I’m not sure how many of you remember this (I’m of the younger generation so everyone seems so old to me), but there was a time the justice system consisted of binding a suspected perpetrator up, and throwing him (or her, to be fair) into a deep body of water. If he floated, he was guilty; if he sank, he was innocent. To ensure that it was as humane as possible, loved ones of the accused were allowed to retrieve him after the judge was sure he had sunk. The upshot of the scenario was sometimes you could retrieve the sunk person before he drowned to death.

Are you metaphorically binding up your workers and throwing them into a deep body of water to see if they sink or float?  Ask your leaders this: What’s the upshot of the value proposition they’re offering workers?  Is it something better than the possibility that they may not drown in unemployment?

Where’s the motivation in what you’re offering your workforce?  Is it a lose-lose proposition for your employees?  Or, even in this deep recession, do you have an inspiring deal to offer them?

Sorry, Goodbye—Now, Get Lost!

[Courtesy of Grantland Cartoons]

Thieves in the night is how most workforce managers I’ve observed run their layoffs. Even if the layoffs occur for no reason other than a corporate monetary shortage or restructuring, there is a pall of secrecy and shame that follows the departing employees. This shroud of silence, that’s inevitably punctured anyway by rabid gossiping, can’t be healthy. As many of you get ready to cut dozens, or maybe many more, employees from your payroll, I wonder if you’ll consider changing the way you do your layoff business.

Okay, I see your point when it’s performance-related. No need to embarrass a poor performer, and no reason to celebrate failure. But if an employee has met his obligations, but has to go through no fault of his own, and is well liked by his peers, why not give him a proper send-off?  How many of you do this already?  The way I’ve seen the severing of ties with victims of downsizing is a Wednesday or Thursday announcement followed by a hasty departure about two days later, usually the closest Friday after the news is broke. The argument in favor of this approach is you don’t want the laid-off workers infecting remaining employees with bad morale and bitterness, and much more insulting to the often-innocent laid-off employees, you don’t feel you can trust them anymore. The company has just fired them, this logic states, so isn’t there at least a fair chance they’ll try to retaliate before they leave? 

These are two risks, it’s true, but the greater risk is the old-fashioned layoff method most of you are still using.  What’s worse for morale, after all, acknowledging and celebrating an out-going employee you had to layoff for non-performance reasons, and trusting this up-till-now upstanding worker to do the right thing, or treating innocent, hard-working individuals, well liked by their peers, like corporate criminals?  E-mailing a list of those fired each quarter followed by a farewell party date isn’t the answer, but it’s close. For non-performance-related departures, send an e-mail to peers of the out-going worker that he or she (or they) will be leaving, that you regret losing their contribution, and that everyone will gather at such-and-such time to say goodbye and wish them good luck. If possible, announce all this a few weeks, if not a full month, before their agreed-on last day. Now, you nay-sayers out there, tell me why this is an unrealistic approach, or a bad idea.  I don’t see the downside. So, you pay them for a few more weeks than you would if you shamefully hustled them out the door a few days after telling them (as nicely as you can) to get lost. Is saving those extra few weeks of salary more important than preserving the morale and engagement of remaining employees, and doing the right thing by the workers you were forced to let go through no fault of their own? 

On a pragmatic level, you also have to think of the benefits of adding a little extra time for knowledge capture. Competent employees whose jobs were slashed due to restructuring or insufficient funds have valuable information to share with the company they leave behind. Remember, in most cases you’ll have to figure out how to divvy up the work they left along with their paycheck. If they were doing their job perfectly well, and you’re actually sorry to see them go, wouldn’t it be great to have their help on that?  And how great would it feel to give them another few weeks to look for something new?  It’s not charity when seen in this light, but another facet of your knowledge management system. I’ve heard that axed employees don’t care to help the company that fired them figure out how to do without them, but I bet that’s mainly in the case of companies that haven’t treated them well. If you’ve shown them respect by giving them good advance notice of their termination, celebrated their contribution to the company, and given them a few extra weeks of work, don’t you think that increases your chances they’ll want to help you move on?   Play the devil’s advocate, and explain to me why this thinking may be too simplistic. Any examples from your own company on why this approach doesn’t work? 

It’s awful to have bitter people under your corporate roof for any longer than is necessary, but it’s also awful to have people bitter towards your company working for your competitors or for vendors or other business partners. Your plan for shoving them out faster than rapidly decaying garbage was only a genius solution up to a certain point—the point at which you realized, “uh-oh, I may have to see these people again, and when I’m in a position to need a favor from them!”  Ever considered that?

One revolutionary approach to severing ties nicely is to set up a Facebook, or other social networking, page dedicated to alumnae of your company. It’s a place for departed employees to keep in touch and network.  To ensure it’s truly dedicated to company alums, you could set up your own Web portal that you can only gain access to with proof of prior employment (maybe as simple as a user name and password you give out-going employees). Be sure to include a mechanism by which alums can update remaining employees on their career progress, and easily get in touch. Think of all the fabulous business deals this may give rise to! 

When you conduct layoffs like thieves in the night, you’re stealing the dignity of those you’ve terminated, but you’re also stealing your own workforce’s morale, engagement, and productivity.

Any tips for laying-off workers in a way that does out-going individuals justice, and doesn’t harm—and maybe even helps--remaining employees? 

Sick Sigma

 

[*Image courtesy of Grantland Cartoons]

Who wouldn't want to be efficient and produce high-quality products and services?  It’s one of those idealistic goals, like exercising five days a week at dawn, cleaning the house before you leave each morning, or religiously staying within your personal budget, that’s hard to argue with. Of course, efficiency and quality control are much more professional and serious than these other ideals, but I lump them together because I wonder if any of them are possible, and if so, at what price?

No doubt your customers or clients deserve efficient, quality service and goods. But to discuss workforce management in terms of “streamlining operations” as if you were referring to pieces of machinery that only need better alignment to deliver greater output, is out of touch. I can imagine it’s comforting to some CEOs and executive boards to think of their workers as a series of levers and knobs that need only be turned a little more to the right or left to refine performance. Naturally, we assume these accomplished men and women are too sophisticated to actually believe their workforces are a system of mechanical devices. But the corporate culture that emphasizes “efficiency and productivity” sometimes sends the message to employees that, indeed, that’s exactly as they’re perceived by management---as a well-oiled or (in these times especially) a rusty engine in need of updating.

So, how do you implement Six Sigma, Lean Management, or some other efficiency/quality measure without forgetting the needs of your workforce?  What effect will the new operations structure have on your employees’ quality of life at the office or manufacturing plant?  More selfishly, you also might want to ask yourself if the new operational structure or process is bearable enough to be carried out long-term?   If you forge ahead the same as if you were refurbishing a printing press or your ’63 Corvette convertible, you’re probably going to experience some “people issues.”  Your more efficient process and operations will be undermined by employee engagement and retention problems. You’ve created a great new system for getting work done. The trouble is many of your workers find it intolerable.

To ensure this Catch-22 style of Six Sigma overhaul doesn’t happen at your company, couple operational and process “improvements” with employee forums that gauge the effect of the new system on the people who will carry it out. Before it’s implemented, ask them what they think of it, and if it’s inevitable because your management gurus have told you it’s the only way to meet your financial and customer service goals, at least ask concerned employees how you can help them transition to the new system.  The (hopefully meaningful) gesture that you care enough to try to ease the blow just might win you some points.  Once the new process and operations are in progress, check back with affected employees once a quarter to see how it’s playing out. Are there new concerns (i.e. new ways my life is miserable now) that have come up?  And are there ways the workers implementing the new system already see to make it even more efficient?  That they’re not automobile engine components is inconvenient in many respects—you have to listen to them complain and experience the repercussions for disregarding their whining—but the upshot of their humanity is they also have potentially beneficial insights to offer.  Along with the “poor me, I have to work so much harder now” conversations, quarterly Six Sigma/Lean Management employee forums may yield innovative ways to boost the new regimen.

In addition, make use of internal Web 2.0 platforms to double-check the livability of your updated processes and operations. How about a Six Sigma or Lean Management blog for affected employees?  Those who contribute blog entries could then be entered into a quarterly raffle for an additional vacation day or $50 gift certificate to Amazon.com, or a local restaurant or store most of them like.  It also would be helpful to provide Generation Y-style access to the executive responsible for overseeing the Six Sigma or Lean initiative. This individual should be prepared not only to receive daily e-mail feedback about the new system; he or she also should be open to receiving and sending on-the-job text messages and photos taken and sent by cell phones from the Six Sigma/Lean frontlines.  You might have to give older workers a tutorial on how to maximize the use of their cell phone so they are able to send the Six Sigma/Lean guru in-the-moment distress messages with pictures to illustrate.

Last, be prepared to swallow your pride about all this Six Sigma/Lean business. It may be one of those management theories that work much better in the abstract than in your office or manufacturing plant. If it’s making employees so unhappy their workplace performance plummets, or an increasing number of them are looking for less efficient, fatter operations elsewhere, there’s a chance Six Sigma is too sick to stay on-the-job another day without further contaminating your workforce.

True, Six Sigma, Lean Management, and other process and operation improvement initiatives are much more serious and sophisticated, than, say, the ideal of eating healthier and exercising to live a longer life.  But there’s a common catch to both of these goals:  You’re more efficient/healthier and you’re producing more high quality output/living longer with fewer diseases, but your workforce/you are miserable.  When employee engagement plummets and resignations soar, your company’s old, less-svelte physique may start looking more glamorous and modelesque.

Have you implemented livable Six Sigma, Lean Management, or some other efficiency and quality initiative at your company?  How did you do it?  Care to share your wisdom for streamlining without misery?

Bench Me, Coach

That old John Fogerty song, Centerfield, never resonated with me. Begging a coach to put me in centerfield as opposed to comfortably (and safely) on the bench or off to the side isn’t anything I can imagine doing—unless it was the only alternative to being fired or not getting a much-needed raise.  Before you warn me not to bring this up in future job interviews, don’t worry.  I generally keep it to myself anyway, and the only reason I’m telling you is to illustrate how hard a case some of us (reliable, competent workers nonetheless) present to corporate coaches.

[Image courtesy of Grantland Cartoons ]

It isn’t that I, and many of my current and past co-workers, don’t like to contribute and be “part of the game.” It’s just that we don’t like to think of ourselves in our professional environment under the thumb of a “coach” of any kind.  We also don’t like the sports or competitive connotation of being “coached” to perform our jobs. It makes the relatively straightforward, sedentary process of dragging oneself every morning to work, and concentrating in a cubicle to complete often-dry assignments, more aggressive and intimidating than it really is. Business competitors aside, I never (or at least usually don’t) think of my cubicle as a boxing ring, tennis court, or stage. I question the aggressive enthusiasm of the term “coach,” and wonder about the mentality of office workers who like it. Instead of likable, productive over-achievers who ask to be placed in “centerfield” to honestly contribute, I’m reminded of the faux achiever who wants to be in “centerfield” and considered a central “part of the game,” and has a lot to say about what needs to be done, but in the end, has no ability to deliver on his ambitions. He may have initially intended to make good, and simply became overwhelmed by the scope of his plans; or this person knew all along it’s good to sound ambitious and beg for centerfield, but not so good having to worry about repeatedly running for and catching the ball.

When you bring a corporate coach into your company, how do you avoid this outside consultant getting monopolized and controlled by these “centerfielders?”  Employees over-enthusiastic to the work of the coach are bound to sign their own, and other innocent bystander work groups, up for unwieldy assignments. Even if they only sign up themselves for realization of unrealistic plans, isn’t there a good chance they’ll drag down others with their all-but-inevitable failure?  Stagnation isn’t a good thing, but if I have to choose between a stagnating, though workable, group of employees, and one that, under the guidance of a coach, sets dynamic, though disruptive, goals, I think I prefer just staying put—especially when there’s no money to spare for mistakes. Of course, if your company is flush with cash, that’s another story. I guess that’s the one caveat to my feelings about coaches with quixotic ideas. Trial and error, and changing your company’s work process into a lab for innovative experiments, is a lot of fun, and possibly very promising, as long as you can afford the error part. How many of you can currently afford setbacks in your work process in the name of professional growth and dynamism?  Other than Heiresses Incorporated, I can’t think of too many companies with that kind of financial freedom for experimentation.

Corporate coaches worry me because if they happen to generate a mess instead of the hoped for mess of cash, it’s you and your employees who have to clean it up. The coach by that time will have received payment for her work, and just may be drinking her third Pina Colada on the beach in Puerto Rico while you’re chugging expressos at midnight in a frantic push to finish all the “deliverables” this brilliant coach encouraged you to sign up for.     

Instead of bringing in a corporate coach from the outside to push your workers and company to greatness, consider peer coaching. Being asked to set objectives and benchmarks for improvement by those your employees work with everyday and are accountable to (especially when their failure causes these colleagues extra work) increases the chances they’ll set realistic, relevant goals.  If you’re not doing it already, add a peer coaching workshop or two to your 360-feedback regimen. Many of you already are asking employees to comment on the performance of co-workers, so why not take it to the next level, and ask them to help these co-workers make improvements in response to the critiques they’ve just delivered to them?  They’ll need a quick tutorial beforehand on the art of constructive criticism, but once that precaution is dispensed with, I don’t see many downsides to having the people who know them best coach your employees and vice versa.  If the peer coach gives thoughtless advice, he or she, as part of the coachee’s work group, will have to live with the results.

Believe me, centerfield is overrated. There’s glory to the centerfield position, but one of those balls you fail to catch could hit you in the head, and then think how worse off you’ll be?

Has your company implemented peer coaching yet?  Do you agree it’s much better than bringing in a corporate coach from outside the company?  What tips can you offer other companies on effective employee and company-wide coaching?