Wednesday 22 February 2012

Emotional Attendance is Mandatory



One of the common experiences I enjoy about working in the HR sector is that, in casual moments when people find out what I do, I often become privy to their workplace “dirty laundry”. Some HR professionals may not enjoy this aspect, but I find it’s almost a trade secret. For it is often in those moments that you may find you are being offered valuable insight into the mindset of employee / manager relations.

The knowledge gained from this type of conversation is one of my favourite examples of diversity education, stemming from the simplicity of sincerely listening to the human experience. It also represents the primal need to be heedfully heard. When we don’t feel heard, it appears disrespectful to our dignity. When we feel disrespected, we do not function at our most effective levels.

While catching up with a friend, I was made privy to the struggles their office and parent organization are currently facing. With my friend’s permission, I was left with some great take-away examples that I felt eager to share. To be clear, I won’t be sharing the “who”, “what” and “where”. To spare the innocent, the details may be vague, but the examples are not.



 This story stems from a managerial promotion that the majority of their staff found questionable. 




The specific office is comprised of approximately 100 employees, who are split between several managers. Within the office, there is an in-house team that was formed to address staff needs. It’s a “before we call the union in, let’s see if we can work this out ourselves” type of situation: a smart, cost effective idea.  

This team scheduled a meeting with the executive who was directly tied to the decision of the questionable promotion and notified the rest of staff as such. When the meeting began, the executive, who had been confirmed to attend, never arrived or notified anyone that they would not be present.



The organization has grievance policies in place to handle matters like these. The employees were notified that a grievance had been filed due to this situation, and that the executive is allotted a certain amount of time to respond. 



How convoluted is this?

The lack of executive attendance – and now the extension of time offered to the executive to respond to why they weren’t in attendance – gave an already ailing office morale (due to the initial questionable promotion situation) a deep kick in the gut.

Still with me?

The employees felt intentionally avoided by management, and left in a situation where they believed their employment equality was being disregarded.

My friend began to then describe how the general tone of the office became “gray”. Those known to frequently laugh were rather silent. Many people began keeping to themselves, and leaving the building for lunch to harness more alone time. They made mention that tensions between management and staff were consistently escalating. Any instance of slight discomfort in the office was being brought to management, because staff felt it was a way to “push back”.

Even my friend, who is one of the most rational people I know, found their mental health was shaken by this instance. At the end of a day, it’s only natural for our brains to Rolodex through the events that occurred over our last twenty-four hours. If the experiences in that time-frame regularly include off-putting work situations, it leads to lack of sleep. Lack of sleep, as we all know, leads to both physical and mental deterioration: something I firmly believe no one must endure as part of their work-life.  
 
So now we fast forward to about a week after the allotted response time is up. Staff are called into a meeting and told that the executive in question would be there to deliver a presentation. However they are not informed as to what the presentation will regard.

The executive proceeds to offer a presentation about office attendance, and how over the past weeks, the employee attendance levels from this specific office have dropped dramatically. Without engaging any discussion as to why this absenteeism is occurring, the executive opts to remind the employees that they have co-workers and when a staff member does not show up for work, their co-worker suffers, and in-turn the entire organization suffers.

Upon the completion of the presentation, a staff member presented the idea to the executive that their lack of attendance was a direct response to the executive’s lack of attendance to the initial questionable promotion grievance meeting. The executive with an apology then claimed they were never informed of the meeting leaving staff disoriented as to what the truth of the situation really was.

Even if I were a staff member of this office, I may not be in ‘the know’ as to the ins and outs of the organization and the full extent of its decision-making process. I’ll acknowledge that not all players in the game need to see the complete playbook. Business is business. Decisions must be made, and one of the first lessons we learn as entrepreneurs is that you can’t please everyone. But I firmly advocate approaching business with a “You can’t please everyone, but you can sincerely try” attitude.

It all boils down to dignity.

Break down of the Situation:
  •  Executive makes an unpopular decision.
  • Employees contest decision.
  • Executive, without warning, does not attend meeting designated to discuss issue.
  • Employees evoke their policy-written right to contest the executive’s actions.
  • Management notifies the employees that they have been heard and will be responded to appropriately.
  • A large portion of time passes with no response.
  • This has a negative effect on employee morale and productivity.
  • Employees are reprimanded for that poor productivity by executive.

In this situation, the employees felt lied to by management, as well as the executive involved. Giving management and the executive the benefit of the doubt, even if they weren’t being misled, employees should never be placed in a situation where they feel it’s a possibility.

If you as a leader provide the lowest common denominator of respectful acknowledgment, you will receive the lowest common denominator of effort from your employee in return. If you do not address a negative situation with swift action and by seeking to understand the emotional well-being of your employees involved, your employees will not seek longevity with your organization.

It’s very simple: Show you sincerely care, and those that sincerely care about your vision will present themselves to you.

 “Communal well-being is central to human life.”  - Cat Stevens

 

 

Wednesday 8 February 2012

Brevity is the Soul of Wit


How much time do you take to get your point across to others? Do you rely on detailed explanations or are you a “one-word-response” individual?  While you should always strive for quality, both forms of communication are proving to be relevant and as with anything based on human nature, finding a balance can be an integral element for success.

There are a variety of reasons, including chemical, as to why it may take one person longer than another to “get to the point”. However for most, a little “cleaning-up” of our verbal minutia can actually go a long way, and even increase an organization’s value.

Last week I came across the Toronto Star’s coverage of The North American Debating Championship hosted by the University of Toronto’s Hart House. The championship title of this year’s 64-team and three-day event went to the students of Canada’s own Carleton University. I could write for days as to the incredible examples of diversity that this competition encourages, but for now I’ll stick to my focus on communication and, in turn, leadership.

In Kenneth Kidd’s article, he concludes, after witnessing the U.S. Republican Party debates, that if any of the GOP nominees were to enter the North American Debating Championship, they would be annihilated by their collegiate competition.

You must admit, the potential of witnessing a young debating champion locking horns with any of the current line-up of politicians in the debating ring would be intellectual gold spectator sport.  This article is absolutely correct. In this debate forum, the politicians would most certainly not prevail. 
 
So why are political leaders utilizing compact points to communicate their vision?   

“They’re not interested in winning the argument,” said Sam Greene, a U of T student and one of the North American Debating Championship organizers. “They’re interested in sound bites that will be talking points.”

We are a world full of “LOL”s and “BRB”s. Whether it’s a headline, a text message or a 140 character Twitter update, all around us we can see signs that bite-sized information is becoming the popular norm when it comes to communication. Public figures such as politicians are banking on it.We can fight this progression all we want, but I firmly believe if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em. Even Stephen Harper and the Obamas are on Twitter. Clearly there is something to be said here.

Now, I am not suggesting that we begin speaking with abbreviated text. While humorous to imagine, I wouldn’t wish that world on anyone! But I have come across organizational leaders, whose goal should be efficiency, not applying this “short & sweet” mindset to their own communication skills. 

Leadership communication should be used like a sword. When we thrash it about extraneously, it’s bound to hurt innocent people. But when used with distinction and precision, the effective impact can be long lasting.

As a leader, it’s imperative to be able to deliver a powerful, well rounded, memorable message, without wasting anyone’s time. Time management is a proven key factor when doing business successfully.

Things that I encourage you to consider when communicating, especially in a leadership role:

·         Is this communication method appropriate for this audience?
·         Am I offering more information than is necessary in this moment?
·         Is what I am saying relevant?
·         Am I answering the question at hand?
·         Is my response moving the conversation forward?
·         Is there a more effective way to convey my message?

We can use these questions in every situation from the lunchroom to the boardroom. Learn from our debating youth, and from our political leaders: develop your details and know when to “bring it home”.

“Aim for brevity while avoiding jargon.”
-Edsger Dijkstra
, Award winning Dutch Computer Scientist (1930-2002)