The strategies and tactics described in this chapter are relatively easy to apply. However, far too often they are not applied, or simply ignored, for a variety of reasons (time constraints, other priorities, philosophical differences, etc.). When they are utilized together as part of an integrated approach, they help foster a climate of teamwork and mutual support. More importantly, these strategies and tactics will inspire the workforce and increase its commitment toward achieving the organization’s goals.
Communicate with Employees as Much as You Can (Visually, Whenever Possible)
This seems like a no-brainer. After all, who can possibly be against communication? The answer is nobody. Everyone I’ve ever met in management tries to communicate with the employees. The problem is that few do it successfully.
In my experience, the best way to communicate with the workforce is through a whole brain approach. This approach is based on the work of Ned Herrman, who developed the Whole Brain Model, which purports that there are four learning styles as follows:
1. Theorists: These are people who prefer lecture, fact, and details, critical thinking, textbooks, and readings.
2. Organizers: These are people who like to learn by outlining, checklists, exercises, and problem solving with steps, policies, and procedures.
3. Innovators: These are people who prefer brainstorming, metaphors, illustrations and pictures, mind mapping and synthesis, and holistic approaches.
4. Humanitarians: These are people who like cooperative learning and group discussion, role playing, and dramatization.1
Given the fact that people have four separate learning styles, it is essential that we attempt to communicate with them in different ways. Simply issuing a memo and expecting everyone to read it, absorb it, and remember it will not work, especially in this age of information overload. We need to get the message out in different ways: certainly in writing, but also through speeches and lectures, both in a group setting and, at times, in a more informal setting. Sometimes we need to communicate with illustrations and pictures, while other times we need to have employees actually attempt to implement the information being transmitted. There is no best way to communicate. Rather, the ideal is to use some combination of the approaches described above.
I once served in an agency’s headquarters where my role was to implement a complex series of new performance measures on a national basis. I developed a lecture that explained the concept, but given its complexity, people had a hard time grasping its intricacies. Eventually, we had to add exercises to the class and repeat them multiple times in different settings (at conferences, in classrooms, at the worksite, on television, and one on one) before people began to understand what this new system was all about. We later added a detailed handbook that people could refer to, so the employees would have all of the information they would need.
In plotting a communication strategy, it is essential that repetition be part of the plan. Early in my career, I would issue a memo or give a speech, and later be amazed at how little of the information was grasped by the workforce. I constantly found myself in a position where I had to explain what I really said and meant. I learned that a one-time effort to communicate an important message in any form was simply not enough; that the key was to communicate the same message multiple times, in different ways, in order to accommodate the employees’ different learning styles.
One of the most powerful ways to communicate and/or reinforce a message is through visual management. Visual management is a novel approach wherein an organization’s physical plant is transformed to do the following:
• Connect the employees to the mission by turning the space into a living, breathing tribute to its mission/customers
• Share information
• Hold the employees accountable
• Shape the outside world’s view of the organization—with the overall goal being improved performance
In essence, visual management combines tried-and-true management tools along with the tools of an artist to help make an organization work great.2
When I became the leader of a government organization that adjudicated veterans’ claims for benefits, it had the lowest customer satisfaction score out of 57 offices. The root cause was that the employees were not connected to the mission, so in many instances, they looked to deny benefits when they should have granted them (our grant rate was 50 percent below the national average). I constantly exhorted the employees to grant more benefits, but I found that this approach was not sufficient.
We then started redesigning our office in an effort to reinforce our message of granting benefits whenever possible. Banners were hung up with this message; we built a display depicting the history of the benefits we were supposed to administer. We added large artifacts typically used by soldiers (e.g., a scale model of an Abrams M-1 tank, a Huey Helicopter, a Willey Jeep, etc.), private reflection areas (a field hospital, a bunker, etc.), and personal memorabilia from veterans (artwork, photographs, letters, medals, etc.) in order to continue get the message across.
We also built a Hall of Fame honoring our employees of the quarter and transformed our training room into a general tribute to all of our folks. Lastly, we added television monitors that gave daily performance and rewards information to all of our employees. The net effect of this communication effort was to increase our grant rate by 50 percent (to the same level as the nation) and our customer satisfaction rate by 37 percent. In honor of this approach, the director of the United States Office of Personnel Management gave our office the prestigious PILLAR (Performance Incentives Leadership Linked to Achieving Results) Award.
The better an organization communicates with its workforce, the better the organization will work as one, united entity. Those organizations that communicate with a whole brain strategy will clearly have an advantage. Incorporating visual management as part of that strategy will ensure that the message is constantly in front of the employees.
Let’s now turn to a couple of areas that often get overlooked in the communication process, yet are essential for maintaining morale and building credibility with the workforce.
A 3-D display using visual management principles that is designed to connect the U.S. Department of Veterans’ Affairs employees to the mission—serving veterans.
Teach Them the Big Picture (The Political Climate)
The first area is the big picture. All government employees work for organizations that are influenced by a variety of political forces. In the federal government, some of the influencers are the White House, the organization’s headquarters, Congress, the public, unions, special interest groups, and the media, just to name a few. At the state or local government level, the influencers can include the governor or mayor, the state assembly, the board of supervisors, as well as many of the same groups that affect the federal government. All of these groups play a role in the political process, and each of them influences the policies of their organizations.
Sometimes, unanticipated events force government to change its course. For example, a war, a terrorist attack, a natural disaster, or a scandal can quickly force a change of direction.
With so many groups and events influencing government, frequent change is virtually inevitable. An Inspector General report may point out problems with Social Security’s claims processing; the media may write a series of articles criticizing a county hospital; a hurricane could develop that would require the sudden redeployment of resources to the affected area; or a budget crisis may trigger a drastic cutback in state spending. These types of events occur all the time at every level of government and inevitably trigger a response by management officials.
From the employees’ perspective, change seems to be constant. They are continuously asked to change their priorities and/or focus to the point where they begin to question management’s competence. We often hear, “If management would only leave us alone and let us do our work, we could get the job done far more effectively.” What the employees don’t realize, however, is that management feels the exact same way. Managers don’t like to constantly alter the course any more than the employees do.
Although the employees and management both get frustrated by the constant changes, the overall reaction is generally different. Since most managers are normally in the political loop, at least to some extent, change is easier to accept. They understand the forces at play and recognize that their role is to implement the inevitable changes as best they can.
To the employees, each additional change is one more indication that management doesn’t know what it is doing. From where they sit, management is constantly jerking them around for reasons that seem unfathomable. These differing reactions to change by the employees and management undermine trust and credibility between these two groups, and pose a danger to the organization.
The solution is to teach the employees the big picture, so they will understand the forces that affect them in the same way that management does. If management does this successfully, it will defuse an enormous amount of tension during periods of change and will ensure that change is implemented smoothly.
One of the lessons I learned early on was to always begin my employee meetings with a discussion of the big picture. I would start with a discussion of the current forces in play. For example, during FY 2005, some of the key influencers in the field of veterans’ benefits were the war in Iraq, the number of soldiers expected to return home, and the national budget deficit. I explained to the employees that these three factors would probably lead to more claims for veterans’ benefits being filed, but conversely, we were likely to have fewer resources with which to process these claims. By giving the employees this sense of context, I knew they would be more understanding and supportive of our local plans and initiatives.
Teach Them What’s Going On in the Local Organization
Knowing what’s going on locally goes hand in hand with understanding the national political picture. In most cases, local plans and initiatives flow from changes at the national, state, or county level. If employees can understand and appreciate both perspectives, they are much more likely to support management. This, in turn, will result in the organization’s available energy being more sharply focused on the mission and the goals.
So how does management go about informing the employees about what’s going on in the local organization? First of all, as stated earlier, it needs to communicate in a way that addresses the employees’ different learning styles. Second, it needs to ensure that the employees understand the big picture. After covering these two bases, management needs to inform the employees about the organization’s local strategy, goals, and expectations. If the employees have this sense of context, they will be able to understand a wide variety of management decisions and will generally be supportive. Conversely, if they don’t understand where the organization is going, they are likely to devote a large amount of time speculating among themselves about what management is really doing and why. This wastes a tremendous amount of the organization’s time and energy, as the employees will become less focused on work and more focused on idle speculation.
I once worked for a local organization that was very secretive. Senior management held virtually all of its decisions very close to the vest. When decisions were finally announced, little, if any, rationale was provided for the decisions. The employees were not given any opportunity to question management about the decisions they made, and there was little interaction between the employees and management. For the vast majority of employees, it felt as though all key decisions were made behind closed doors in smoke-filled rooms, by the “in crowd.”
After the decisions were announced, the rumor mill took over, with people spending an inordinate amount of time on the phone or around the water cooler, trying to figure why that particular decision was made and what it portended for the future. Since almost everyone felt frozen out of the process, many felt disenfranchised from the organization. As a result, all senior management got was compliance from its employees. What it did not get, however, was commitment, and we all know that the difference between mere compliance and commitment is huge.
In another organization, I encountered the opposite approach. In this organization, senior management held periodic meetings with the employees wherein the chief executive and his key assistants explained what was going on, what his goals and strategies were, and discussed any changes in the political wind. He also gave the employees the opportunity to question the rationale behind the decisions that were being made in the organization.
This executive made it a point to walk around the worksite on a daily basis (more on this approach later) so he could get his message across and hear the concerns of the people. Finally, he published a monthly newsletter that contained additional information as to what was going on at the office (promotions, birthdays, changes to policy, etc.). This open approach to communication, which was an intentional part of the overall communication strategy, bought that executive a tremendous amount of employee commitment.
Give Them Feedback as to How They Are Doing
So far, we’ve generally talked about communication at the group level. Another key piece to this equation involves one-on-one communication. Although it is essential that employees know what’s going on both inside and outside of their organization, it is equally important that they know what’s going on with respect to them.
If an employee believes she is doing well, while her supervisor believes the opposite, trouble will be brewing. In addition, if an employee does not receive any feedback, she is likely to become anxious and/or cautious, neither of which is good for the organization.
Periodic one-on-one feedback sessions will address these issues because employees will know how they are doing relative to the organization’s expectations. These sessions provide an excellent opportunity to nip problems in the bud, or to reinforce excellent performance and/or behavior. Naturally, management also needs to ensure that these sessions are reliably applied, as discussed earlier.
When done correctly, these sessions will let employees know what they are doing well and where they need improvement. In most cases, people want to know how they are doing so they have an opportunity to improve. They will appreciate honesty and will attempt to address their limitations.
If someone has a performance or conduct problem, once he is placed on notice regarding the problem (and it is documented), it becomes very difficult for him to later argue that he didn’t know about the problem. Moreover, if he can see what the consequences are for continuing to have the same problem, he is likely to address it. By the same token, if he cannot improve, and management has to take a certain action, he will be more accepting of the consequences because he can see the action coming.
Handling an Employee with Performance Problems. An employee was promoted to a position that was beyond his competence. This was a good individual who was well respected for the work he did in his previous job. The new position was simply too complex for this person, and he clearly struggled. As soon as his problems became apparent, management intervened and sincerely tried to assist him. However, despite multiple counseling sessions, additional training, and the help of a mentor, this individual continued to struggle. Since it was apparent to everyone, especially the employee, that he was not going to make it, he voluntarily requested an assignment back to his former position, which was immediately granted. The employee felt that he was treated fairly and honestly, and returned to his former position in good spirits, because he could read the writing on the wall. Management handled the situation well and prevented this employee from becoming cynical and anti-management, which happens far too often when the employee cannot see an adverse event coming.
Mishandling Employee Performance Reviews. The exact opposite once happened to me. I worked for an organization that distributed a total of 31 written performance targets to its senior executives. These targets were all given equal weight, at least on the written performance plan. Many of the targets appeared to be out of reach, because we (as well as many other offices) were in the middle of an extended hiring freeze that had been going on for several years. We worked extremely hard to achieve as many targets as possible, and at the end of the year, our office met or exceeded a much higher percentage of the targets than the nation as a whole.
When I was informed that my rating for the year was “fully successful,” I was shocked, because I did not see it coming. While a “fully successful” rating is a good rating, my previous ratings were almost always “outstanding,” and that’s what I expected. I was obviously caught by surprise, and felt that I was not treated fairly.
This rating hurt my relationship with my supervisor and left me upset and frustrated for a while. Whether it is a senior executive or a trainee, when an individual does not see a management action coming, it invariably angers that individual and weakens the person’s sense of commitment to the organization.
Manage by Walking Around (MBWA)
This approach to management, first described by Tom Peters,3 is another form of communication that is extremely effective and is a perfect complement to the other communication strategies we’ve described so far. Since I have spent many years managing by walking around, I want to reinforce this approach and explain why it is an excellent communication and management technique.
From my perspective, MBWA accomplishes three main goals that are completely consistent with my philosophy:
1. It allows management to see what’s really going on in the organization.
2. It can streamline communication and improve access to information.
3. It can improve morale by letting the employees know that management is truly interested in both their needs and the needs of the organization.
It has been my experience that if you sit in your organization’s ivory tower, you can convince yourself of anything. That is, you can always find one number or statistic that will support your desire to believe that everything is going well. Over time, if all the information you receive is filtered in such a way as to support your belief that things are going well, you will fall deeper and deeper into denial. Reports of problems will be quickly dismissed, and you will become further and further isolated. History has shown that this fate can befall anyone, from first-line supervisors to presidents who become more and more isolated.
Early in my career, I did not manage by walking around, but tended to be a “numbers guy” who would look for all of the answers in our organization’s metrics. When the employees did not share my view of things, I simply assumed that they did not understand what was really going on. In retrospect, I had only one side of the story, and it cost me dearly, since I often made decisions based on a false sense of reality.
After exposure to a leader who walked around the workplace on a daily basis, I very quickly began to realize that there could easily be a disconnect between our statistics and reality. It soon became evident that management by walking around was a necessary reality check.
At the time I was working for an organization that processed claims for benefits. Our statistics on average time to process claims were pretty good. That was the number that we were focusing on. What I didn’t understand, until I start walking around, was that the number of unprocessed claims was climbing, which was a leading indicator of future timeliness. By walking around, I could see that a large number of claims folders were sitting on the desks of our employees waiting to be worked, and that the stress on the work floor was building. Moreover, I could see the tension and frustration on the faces of the employees, who were unhappy that our backlog was increasing. I quickly learned that statistics were one indicator of an organization’s health, but not the only indicator.
Another benefit to MBWA is enhanced communication. When I first started walking around, people were very suspicious of me. Since they hadn’t seen me very often, they assumed that I must have an ulterior motive for walking around. As they began to realize that I was determined to walk around on a daily basis, they started opening up. Initially, when I asked how things were going, the answer I always received was “fine.” However, the answers began to change once people realized that I was serious, and was truly interested in what they had to say. Suddenly, people started telling me what was really going on. They would discuss concerns ranging from the ventilation system, to workflow issues, to the rumor mill. I would then cross-check this information with others, and, where appropriate, would immediately act on it.
During one of my rounds, I learned from several employees that they were experiencing problems with the mail. When I looked into this issue, it turned out that they were right, as a number of our mailroom employees were out on extended leave. If I had stayed in my office, I probably would not have learned about this until several weeks later, when the damage was done. However, because I had greatly increased my stream of information, I was able to quickly address this issue by detailing several people to the mailroom.
MBWA produces information in several different ways. As we’ve discussed, looking at the work is one source of information, and speaking to the employees is another. A third source is through the employees’ body language. Sometimes, the employees simply don’t feel comfortable telling someone in management that there is a problem. They may feel that it is not their job or that they will be punished if they disclose negative information. However, after walking around for a while, I began to realize that people often disclose information through their body language.
When an employee shrugs her shoulders or rolls her eyes, she is giving me a message. After a while, I began to read this unspoken language and understood that it was another way for employees to communicate with me and another way for me to learn about what was really going on.
I also found that MBWA provided me with an opportunity to communicate directly with the employees in a way that I couldn’t during large group meetings. Those meetings are certainly an excellent way of passing along information. A few people will typically ask questions, but many will not because they are uncomfortable speaking in front of large groups.
It eventually became my practice after these meetings to walk around and ask the employees what they thought of the meeting. First of all, it gave me the chance to see if they really understood my message. It also gave me the opportunity to see if my lower-level managers were giving them the same message that I was. Finally, it gave me the chance to address any lingering questions from the meeting. Naturally, I was aware that if I answered the questions of a few of the employees, they would pass on my responses to others, which would further ensure that my message was getting out.
The third reason I manage by walking around is that it provides me with the opportunity to be visible—that is, to show the employees that I am there for them and that I am willing to do whatever it takes to help them succeed. When people see you on a daily basis, and they then see you reacting to their concerns, you build instant credibility. They realize that you are a person of your word, and they appreciate you for it—because that is not something they see often. If they realize that you are willing to go the extra mile for them, they, in turn, will go the extra mile for you.
For example, I once took over an organization that was very dissatisfied with the landlord. One of the biggest problems was the air conditioning, or lack thereof. In order to address this situation, I walked around with the building manager and his maintenance team. In full view of the employees, I pointed out the areas of dissatisfaction. Quickly, the ventilation improved, and the employees realized that I was willing to do whatever it took to improve their working conditions.
This simple action on my part built an enormous amount of goodwill, for everyone realized that I was there to help. They now recognized that if I walked around and identified a problem, I would do everything in my power to try and address it.
As time progressed, all sorts of problems were brought to my attention, and I did whatever I could to address them. Computer issues, copier problems, security concerns, you name it; I tried to address them all. Although people knew I couldn’t solve every problem, at least they knew that I was trying. At the same time, I also wanted people to follow the chain of command, and I emphasized that in my conversations. Otherwise, the employees would begin to bypass their supervisors/managers and always go directly to me.
As time went by, many of the supervisors began to see the success of MBWA and they modeled that behavior. This built a stronger and more robust communication loop between management and the employees.
Ask Your Employees for Advice
Another strategy for enhancing communication, improving performance, and building morale is to periodically ask the employees for advice on key issues. This approach can be taken during large group meetings, in smaller settings, or while walking around. I have found this to be an effective approach because: (1) the people who do the work are often in the best position to tell you what the problems are as well as the solutions; and (2) by going directly to the workers and asking their advice, they will feel valued as long as you truly listen to what they say and carefully consider their ideas.
This approach fits well with the overall philosophies stated earlier (people want to do a good job, they want to be part of a winning organization, always treat people with respect, etc.) because you are including everyone in the effort to improve performance. When everyone feels valued, the level of effort and focus increases, leading to a more productive organization. Moreover, when people see that their advice is valued, they look more closely for ways to improve and seek to give even more advice, which creates a positive domino effect. Let’s look at a few examples.
One organization I’m familiar with had as its mission to rehabilitate its clients and find them jobs. Basically, we had to determine if they had an employment impairment and, if so, place them in an appropriate program of education or training, and then help them to find a job. The people who did these jobs were highly educated and skilled professionals who knew that they could make a major difference in the lives of their clients. The problem was that while many people went through the system and received some services, the vast majority did not find jobs, which resulted in a very low rate of rehabilitation.
We sat down with the employees and asked them for their advice. The consistent message we received from virtually everyone was that they were stretched far too thin and were unable to concentrate on the bottom line—finding their clients jobs. They all had too many clients to manage (some were trying to case manage as many as 300 to 500 clients), so they were simply moving them along through the system. To a person, they emphasized that we needed to offload some of their work, so they could concentrate on their core mission (i.e., finding their clients jobs).
After listening to the employees’ advice, we decided to reorganize the way we did the work. Much of their clerical work was moved to other parts of the division so the professionals could focus on the most complex parts of the job. Moreover, we hired a number of outside contractors to assume a portion of the workload so we could reduce the caseload of our professionals to a manageable number (1:125). We also improved the way we tracked our work to make sure that each of the professionals was pulling his own weight. Over time, they became much more effective at performing their core work, and the number of clients they rehabilitated increased by over 600 percent. The employees in that division now feel valued, and for the past few years, they have received a number of national awards. Moreover, during my last year there, every professional far exceeded his performance standards.
A second case involves an organization that had unusually low productivity. As is my custom, I asked the employees for their advice. Many of them immediately complained about the workspace design. They indicated that because they were sitting virtually on top of each other, with no partitions, and because there were many visitors to the worksite, they were constantly being distracted and had little opportunity to concentrate on the work. As I examined the design, I immediately realized that they were right. The employees were all seated together with no privacy, in the middle of the office. Interestingly, the file cabinets were situated against the windows so they had the best view of the outside world. The layout promoted a high degree of socializing and wandering around the office, and afforded little opportunity for the employees to concentrate on the work.
As soon as we could, we changed the layout, which created natural barriers that reduced the amount of wandering around and socializing. (Note: The natural barriers were intended to allow teammates to interact whenever necessary, but to prevent wandering from team to team, which was generally unnecessary.) The layout change also allowed the employees to concentrate on their work, which was highly technical in nature. The first month that we changed the design, our productivity increased by 8 percent, which was entirely due to our taking the advice of our employees.
Sometimes we are unable to implement the advice that our employees give us. It may be because the employee does not understand how a proposal will affect other parts of the operation; the resources may not be there to implement what is being suggested; or the advice may simply not make sense. Whatever the reason, as long as we explain to the people making the suggestion why we cannot implement it, they will normally understand, will feel that their ideas have been considered, and will continue to make suggestions.
On occasion, many of us will find ourselves in a group setting where a particularly strident individual will criticize whatever management is doing. This person invariably falls into the bottom 10 percent category and usually tries to put management on the defensive. If that happens, I first try and explain my side of the story. If the person continues to attack me, I will turn the tables on her and ask her publicly what she would suggest we do. In most cases, the response will be, “That’s not my job. That’s the job of management.” This approach accomplishes two things:
1. It lets everyone know that you are open to the opinions of others, no matter how difficult a particular employee may be.
2. If the person gives you the typical response, it demonstrates to the group that the employee is attacking management for the sake of attacking management, and that the employee does not have any better ideas. Conversely, if the employee has a good idea, I’m all ears.
Say “Thank You” as Often as You Can
Asking people for their advice also entails thanking them when you accept their input. Saying “thank you” to someone (whether it is for giving good advice, outstanding performance, excellent behavior, etc.) is one of the best ways for reinforcing good behavior, as long as it is delivered and accepted as being sincere. When done properly, saying “thank you” is a powerful technique for motivating people and improving the bottom line. According to Jennifer Newman and Darryl Grigg:
It sometimes seems difficult to extract a thank you from someone at work. Many employees we hear from complain of a dearth of appreciation for their efforts. They long for a pat on the back, even an appreciative smile or some indication they’ve done something that has helped out.
Unfortunately, thank yous happen infrequently. Yet research indicates organizations that value gratitude benefit through increased performance. Customer retention increases, staff loyalty, and job satisfaction are heightened and . . . people are more helpful to their customers when they feel appreciated.4
It is important to note that we should thank only people that truly deserve our thanks. Otherwise, if we thank people for their work, whether they deserve it or not, it will dilute the value of the “thank you.” Moreover, by thanking only the employees who truly deserve our thanks, the people who are left out will get the message that management does not believe that they deserve to be thanked.
Early in my career, I served as personnel officer in an organization that was really struggling. The performance statistics were very poor, morale was low, and there was a general sense among the management team that our organization was unmanageable. Within this context, I was trying to deal with a wide variety of difficult personnel and labor-relations issues.
After a while our central office became increasingly concerned about the performance of our organization, and sent a special team to review our operation. Naturally, at that point, there was a lot of fear among our management team, since we were concerned that we would all be labeled as being poor managers. When the team surveyed our office, they found plenty of blame to go around. However, they made a point of calling me aside and telling me that they thought I was doing an excellent job and thanking me for my good work.
This simple gesture made a world of difference to me and made me realize that if you do a good job, even under difficult circumstances, people will notice it, appreciate it, and recognize you for it. To this day, I still recall with great pleasure the simple thanks I received during a difficult time in my career.
On another occasion, I was detailed as acting director to an office that had been experiencing a lot of problems. An arrogant leader, who abused the employees in many different ways, was responsible for the bulk of the problems. In fact, he eventually retired after being accused of sexual harassment by one of the employees.
When I arrived, I tried to walk around and get to know the employees. As you could imagine, they were reluctant to say much because they were used to being treated poorly. However, it quickly became apparent to me that the employees of this office were exceptional, especially since they had a well-earned reputation for high productivity.
I still recall one particular group of employees that made a large impression on me—the folks in the mailroom. These people were serious, hard-working individuals who never received any respect. As I looked into their performance, I noted that they always seemed to deliver the mail on time, and with excellent accuracy. No one really had anything bad to say about them; they were simply ignored by their more highly educated co-workers. I therefore decided to speak with them both as a group and individually, and thank them for their efforts. Their reaction to my simple gesture shocked me. They said that I was the first director who had visited them in almost 20 years (except for the day before Christmas). They were incredibly appreciative that someone had recognized their good work, and advised me that they would do anything, and they emphasized the word anything, for me.
Be Sensitive to People’s Sensitivities
Communicating with the employees, particularly when walking around and saying “thank you,” poses some risks, as management’s actions can easily be misinterpreted. Every word you say, every gesture you make, even the expressions you have on your face will be closely scrutinized by the employees, because of the inherent power that rests with management. More often than you can imagine, they will attempt to “read the tea leaves” and give far too much meaning to something where no meaning was intended. This can easily lead to confusion, mixed messages, or worse.
By nature, I am a very serious person. While I have a good sense of humor, it tends to be dry. Moreover, whenever I am concentrating on something, I seem to wear an expression that makes me appear to be angry. That expression has sometimes gotten me in trouble because people have assumed that I was angry with them, which was not the case at all. I learned that as a senior leader, I have to control my expression at all times, at least when I am with people, if I want them to get the right message.
Most workforces these days are pretty heterogeneous, meaning that our employees bring a wide variety of experiences, cultural preferences, and biases to the workplace. This makes our job even more difficult, as one approach clearly will not work for all. The answer is to keep our eyes and ears as wide open as possible, to constantly read the workforce (both by what they say and by what they don’t say) and gauge what they are thinking, and to have as many sources as possible that are willing to give us the unfiltered truth. Let’s look at a few examples.
It is my practice to try and walk around every day at work and talk to the employees. I generally don’t talk to everyone on a daily basis, but I do try and speak to a representative sample. Sometimes the office layout can cause unexpected challenges.
In one particular office where I worked, it was difficult to approach the employees who sat near the windows, since they were often surrounded by carts or files cabinets. As time went by, I became a bit sloppy and tended to talk only to the people in front—because it was convenient for me. What I didn’t realize was that many of our African-American employees sat near the windows because that was the most desirable space and they had the longest tenure with our office. Since it appeared to them that I was ignoring them, they began to question whether my actions were intentional. While they were not, I was not as sensitive to their impressions as I should have been. Fortunately, our union president, who had always served as a reality check for me, pointed this issue out to me early enough that I was able to change my practice. Once I ensured that I was talking to a true representative sample of the employees, the issue went away.
It is amazing what management can be accused of. One time, a Jewish member of our workforce accused me of being, or at least acting like, an anti-Semite. This accusation struck me as being a bit unusual, since it was no secret that I am Jewish. When I asked the employee what formed the basis for her accusation, she replied, “You are bending over backwards to hurt the Jews, so the non-Jews will not think you are prejudiced in favor of the Jews.” While her reasoning struck me as a bit convoluted, I did recognize that perception could be reality for some. We sat down and went over the basis for her accusation, and I eventually convinced her that I had been even-handed. However, I came away from this meeting with the recognition that I had to be constantly on my guard in an effort to both treat and appear to treat our employees in a fair and equitable manner.
We not only have to be sensitive to every race and ethnic group, we also have to be sensitive to the different personality types of our employees.
Most people prefer to talk with positive, upbeat individuals. It’s simply not as enjoyable to talk to someone who is angry, depressed, or cynical. However, we have to make sure that we attempt to talk to everyone, regardless of his or her personality type. First of all, it’s the right thing to do. Second, it will insulate us from any charges of disparate treatment. Third, by talking to these individuals, we may be able to change their behavior or we may find that they are as not as negative as they appear to be.
Early in my career, I shied away from talking to a female employee who never seemed to want to talk to me or anyone else. I thought she was an unhappy person who didn’t get along with anyone. One day, I got up the nerve to talk to her. It turned out that she was a delightful person who was extremely shy. She was very happy to learn that someone, particularly at my level, had taken an interest in her. From that moment on, she slowly but surely opened up to me and eventually became a positive force in our organization.
Your Human Resources Management Advisors
If applied fairly, the strategies and tactics discussed here for managing government employees will greatly improve our chances of having a high-performing, well-motivated workforce. However, we all come across situations that require the advice of others, someone who is knowledgeable in the field of human resources and is not emotionally involved in the situation. That individual is the human resources (HR) specialist. HR specialists wield an enormous amount of power in government organizations, because the personnel rules and regulations are so complex and convoluted that line managers can’t possibly be expected to become experts in the field. As a result, they have to frequently turn to HR experts for advice and assistance as to how they should deal with their employees.
The Two Types of HR Specialists
I was an HR specialist for years, and have also served in line management wherein I interacted with HR specialists on a daily basis. Those experiences have taught me that HR specialists tend to have two different schools of thought. The first school says, “If the personnel rules don’t say you can do it, don’t do it.” The second school of thought says, “If the personnel rules don’t say you can’t do it, do it.” These two schools of thought reflect different mindsets among HR specialists. The first group tends to take a strict constructionist interpretation of the personnel manual; the second group takes a much more liberal interpretation. The difference in these two philosophies is profound. I strongly believe that the extent to which either philosophy infiltrates an organization will have a major influence on its success.
The first philosophy is generally held by HR specialists who see their primary role as protecting the personnel rules and regulations. They want to ensure that they never make a mistake, that every rule and regulation is complied with to the letter, and that they look exceptionally good on a personnel audit of their records. They also want to be certain that only airtight, perfect cases go to a third party.
In my view, these individuals are technocrats, since their primary loyalty is to the HR manual, not to the organization’s mission. They rarely take the time to learn the organization’s mission, because they spend most of the time trying to comply with the personnel rules. As a result, when line managers come to them for advice, the advice they provide is designed to ensure that the line manager does not break any rules. They do not try and assist the line manager in accomplishing her mission, because they do not really understand the mission. For these types of HR specialists, the mission is secondary to the personnel rules and regulations.
As an example, an office where I worked was desperate to hire some trainees. Since we were located in a high-cost-of-living area, and the salary we were offering was not competitive with the private sector, we knew that recruitment would be tough. We did a lot of advertising and received a reasonable number of applications. However, the personnel office that was servicing our office took a conservative approach toward qualifying the applicants, and more than half of them were disqualified, even though many of them appeared to be good candidates.
It was particularly galling from our standpoint, because the qualification standards merely required general experience in the same or related field as the job we were recruiting for. Instead of taking a flexible approach to qualifications determinations, recognizing that it was in the best interests of the government to have a large pool of candidates, the HR specialist took an overly rigid approach and greatly pared down our pool. The net result was that we were unable to bring on as many highly qualified individuals as we would have desired.
The second philosophy is generally held by HR specialists who see their role as being there to support the organization’s mission. They understand that the rules and regulations are important, but they interpret them more flexibly, recognizing that they were not written to cover every situation. They are willing to take chances and are prepared to make an occasional mistake, knowing that they are trying to help the organization achieve its mission.
These individuals take the time to learn the organization’s mission and see themselves as key contributors to that mission. For them, human resources management is not separate and distinct from line management; it is closely integrated with them in an effort to accomplish the organization’s mission.
To my mind, these are the HR specialists who truly add value to organizations. When a supervisor comes to them for help, they do not immediately say no. They start with a question, “What are you trying to accomplish?” Once the goal is clear, they figure out ways it can be accomplished, so they can achieve management’s objectives while flexibly and appropriately interpreting the governing rules and regulations.
There was once a very tense situation in my organization. Three employees were involved in a love triangle that was polarizing the office. At any one time, two of these individuals seemed to be romantically involved, leaving the third person out in the cold. The third individual in the equation frequently changed, creating a situation where one of the three always seemed to be angry. Almost on a weekly basis, one of them would file a complaint against one or both of the remaining two individuals. As you can imagine, the situation became very personal, and many people were dragged into this mess. Moreover, an enormous amount of time was wasted looking into and trying to resolve these never-ending complaints.
No one could figure out how to address this issue until I proposed that we counsel all three individuals and advise them that continued problems relating to their love triangle would result in all three of them being disciplined, regardless of who complained. The traditionalists were shocked by this approach because there were no personnel manual references that allowed management to take such an action against all three individuals; there was no precedent for the action; and they were concerned as to what would happen if the action went to a third party.
Despite these concerns, management decided to take my advice and proceed with the counselings. Once the employees received the written counselings, they realized that management was serious and was prepared to do what it had to do to stop their nonsense. Immediately, they stopped bringing their problems to the workplace, and the issue went away.
Toward the beginning of my career, I was interviewed for the position of personnel officer. During the interview, the director and assistant director constantly complained to me about an employee in the finance department. This individual held a black belt in karate and was intimidating both the employees and management. He frequently made subtle threats of bodily harm to people; however, because the threats were deemed by the HR office to be difficult to prove, no action was taken, which only reinforced his belief that he was invulnerable. No one knew what to do about this individual, but it was clear to everyone that he was having an adverse impact on the organization. I promised my interviewers that I would immediately deal with this individual if selected, and shortly thereafter, I got the job.
During my first week on the job, he made one of his veiled threats to management, which was immediately relayed to me by his division chief. I suggested that we propose his removal. The division chief was shocked. “We can’t do that!” he said. “Why not?” I replied, He said, “Personnel has told me time and again that if we take action based on these types of threats, we will lose before a third party.” I then asked him how many times he had gone to a third party, and the answer was never. In essence, they had avoided taking action out of fear of later being overturned, so they had given up before they had even started.
I asked the division chief if he thought that removing this individual was the right thing to do. He responded, “Absolutely.” I therefore asked him to try things my way and see what happened. He agreed. Once the employee received the proposed removal, his entire demeanor changed. He went from being a confident bully to being genuinely afraid of losing his job. He blamed his behavior on a long-time mental condition, and we eventually negotiated an exit strategy wherein he took a disability retirement.
All of the senior managers were amazed that a long-standing difficult personnel problem went away virtually overnight. They realized the value of having an HR specialist who was not afraid to recommend a risky approach. After that, I was always at the table when key HR decisions were made.
Getting Good HR Advice Is Harder than Ever
By now it should be clear that a top-notch HR specialist can make an enormous difference in an organization. Unfortunately, managers often find themselves saddled with a local HR specialist who is either inexperienced or a rigid thinker, or who does not understand their mission or their needs.
This problem has been compounded by the push to centralize HR activities in an effort to reduce the size of government. On paper, this approach makes perfect sense. After all, does every organization really need its own HR staff? The answer is probably not. However, as so often happens in government, the push to reduce staffing resulted in so much centralization that few HR jobs were left at the local level.
This has resulted in two distinct problems. First of all, where HR jobs were consolidated, HR ceased being viewed as a valued career field at the local level. Smaller HR offices resulted in fewer career opportunities, causing the most talented and experienced HR specialists to leave their local organizations for greener pastures (usually in the same area of the country, with an HR office that had not been centralized). At the same time, the remaining pool of available talent began to shrink, because these folks also took the message that HR was not a valued career field. As a result, they simply looked for other career fields to enter. This left the remaining HR specialists in the difficult position of having very few individuals at the local level to turn to for guidance and mentoring.
The move toward centralized HR activities also created a different set of problems. Since these large offices serve so many different organizations, it is hard for them to provide the individualized level of service that local HR offices used to provide. They devote most of their energies toward filling positions for their largest customers and, to some extent, become almost HR recruitment factories. Moreover, because these offices are usually not co-located with the organizations that they service, they are rarely in tune with what is happening at the local level.
The net result is that many managers are unhappy with the level of HR advice they are receiving today. This is particularly troubling given the fact that it is more difficult to manage government employees today than ever before, for three reasons:
1. The demand for performance and accountability is incredibly high, creating more and more pressure on everyone.
2. People are more litigious than ever.
3. Government employees have more options than in the past because retirement programs are more portable, making them less likely to stay if they don’t want to.
With all of these challenges, how does a government manager survive if the organization has a poor HR advisor? The answer is simple: either change your advisor or change your advisor. If the person at the worksite is weak, try to find a mentor who can help develop the advisor to become more aggressive and action-oriented. If that doesn’t work, find someone else, either at the current worksite or at another location, who has the expertise to help you.
You’ve probably met such a person at conferences or on project teams. While she may not be able to assist you on a daily basis, you can definitely turn to her when key decisions need to be made. There are still plenty of people around who are skilled in HR. The problem is, there are not nearly as many out there as there used to be.
Finding someone with the right skill sets and attitude to help you through the difficult situations is absolutely crucial, because without the right person, you are likely to be paralyzed by inaction.
Key Points to Remember
• Communicate as much as possible, in a whole brain fashion, using visual management techniques.
• Let employees know what’s going on in the organization and how they are doing; say “thank you” as often as possible.
• Manage by walking around; learn what your employees are thinking.
• You need an HR advisor who is flexible, creative, and mission-oriented.