Category Archives: in the news

HR: Sorting out Business Mistakes – Employees and Customers

Posted on by
Reply

 

When you make a mistake at work, do you obsess and then over-react?  Maybe you blame others around you. I tend to think about it over a 24 hour period and then usually let it go. I rarely blame others and try to go easy on myself about whatever I contributed to the error or problem.  This is partly because of my age and experience and partly due to some great advice I got as a young executive in my first management job.

How you must respond to mess-ups in a business-sense depends upon the interaction of two important factors.

  1. Relative size of the mistake
  2. Relative visibility of the mistake to the outside world

Size of the mistake

Calculating the size of a mistake involves a common sense evaluation of right and wrong, ethics, and legality. A breach of confidentiality is generally a pretty serious mistake. It is wrong and potentially illegal.  If there is a breach involving employee social security numbers, checking account numbers or dates of birth,  it’s very serious.  This error can aid criminals in identity theft and fraud. When something is wrong, illegal, and/or unethical, it’s a serious mistake.

A much more minor error might be if a management list of business issues goes to one extra manager who was not supposed to be on a distribution list.  Damage control involves having a chat with that one manager. Another minor issue might be an easily corrected math error. Again, correct the error and move on.

Mistakes involving one or two work units are minor.  Errors involving the entire company, the company’s most well-know brands and significant numbers of customers will be greater and much more complicated to fix.

The “external judgment” factor

When it’s easy for a casual observer to see how a mistake might be made this is generally a lesser issue than when a company fails to install obvious procedural checks and balances. Most people expect companies to know obvious risks and to do something to prevent obvious errors – such as confidentiality breaches.

Error Frequency

Remember when Netflix failed to anticipate understandable customer push back regarding rates after their failed price increase in September 2011.  This was a fairly obvious error that might have been discovered/anticipated by market research.  Everyone assumes a large company has resources to conduct research and knows it’s important. Then, weeks later, the company made another mistake by separating it’s movie business into two brands. This decision was later reversed. They failed to anticipate a considerable backlash to a price increase and then made things worse by having no comprehensive and well-thought out response. Too much reactive decision-making.

The greater the error, the greater the need for a thoughtful plan to control the damage, create a new plan and amend procedures to prevent this type of error in the future.

Visibility of the mistake

Visibility refers to employees, customers and sometimes to regulators. Mistakes can have low visibility – a few employees got an internal memo they shouldn’t have; or high visibility – a damaging internal memo is leaked to several external clients. The greater the number of individuals outside  an organization who become aware of the mistake, the greater the need for external damage control. External damage control can often lead to media exposure. Once media exposure is involved, a very small mistake can take on global proportions.

Here’s a simple guide:

  • Small mistake, low visibility – speak to the people involved, change procedures and move on.
  • Small mistake, high visibility – notify those involved, change the procedures and prepare for media response
  • Large mistake, low visibility – speak to the people involved, change procedures and consider performance couselings for those who are most responsible for the problem.
  • Large mistake, high visibility – conduct an investigation, prepare two responses for the people involved and then the media. Step carefully because your response will be scrutinized. Be deliberate, respectful and fair.

Mistakes can lead to deeper relationships

Mistakes create opportunities to improve the company and help employees grow in their performance and skill. If the mistake involves customers, they remember what you did in the face of adversity.  Did you overreact and blame them or your employees? Did you fail to admit what happened? Most importantly, Did you disclose mistake’s source or cause and fix it? Customers will understand if you come clean and make it right. Think about the “Tylenol tampering” scandal of 1982 in which Johnson & Johnson took a well-reasoned and honest approach and suffered little long-term damage as a result.

Don’t berate employees

I have seen colossal over-reactions that caused more damage that the original error. Try to stay calm and remember that employees generally want to do their best. The most common source of errors is confusing or inadequate communication. Empathize with employees and hold people accountable only after a good investigation of what went wrong. Don’t be too heavy-handed – make the consequence fit the nature and degree of the problem. And, if your initial reaction was wrong, go back and make amends correcting things you said or did in a reactive mode. Employees will forgive this as well.

An ounce of prevention

Preventing mistakes is so much easier than “un-ringing a bell.” The moral of this story is to pay attention to operational issues. Set up procedures with reasonable checks and balances; train employees in the basics of their jobs; and guide them to have an eye out for the most likely problems that will lead to embarrassment or worst – illegal activities. Be clear in your communication with them on all matters. Then follow a deliberate process to handle mistakes as they arise.

(c) BCSPublishing 2012 all rights reserved

 

“Overshare” The Modern Version of TMI!!

Posted on by
Reply

I heard this word for the first time from a student in one of my classes.  He was giving way too much information about his personal life – making other students uncomfortable.  I see it now in various settings.  For example, LinkedIn is for business and professional information.  Most social media folks feel personal stories and photos don’t belong there.

I use my Twitter account as a professional tool.  It has a professional handle and over the last year I’ve gotten better about following people who tweet about professional, related topics.  I wrote a blog about the weird, sexy head shots some professional women use there.  To me, cleavage is a little too personal if your content is of a professional nature.  The rule of thumb for me on that is – What do you want people thinking about when you’re talking to them? The words and points you are making or the shape of your body.  At work I’m looking for the words and points!

Facebook is a place where people definitely overshare. I like to read about basic news of family, graduations, etc. Not all that interested in drinking/drunk pictures. I’m also a little uncomfortable when people at either end of the spectrum go too far down the political path.  I have a wide mix with a smattering of far left and far right.  One far right person unfriended me because of stuff my other friends were posting.  Oh well.

Employees clearly overshare in the workplace about their illnesses, surgeries and personal troubles.  I have been called upon to help companies make a healthy shift in the milieu.  It is complicated and requires a multi-pronged approach but involves orienting employees to HIPAA guidelines and such.

Finally, the dreaded friend overshare.  The worst for me is graphic detail about an illness.  Seriously. Do not need to know what flu symptoms kept you up at night.

If you have employee overshare stories I would love to hear them. @HRSociology.

(c) BCSPublishing 2012 all rights reserved

HR Labor Homelessness and Unemployment

Posted on by
Reply

I was surfing news and found someone else in HR willing to talk about the connection between Human Resource management and American social and economic policy – An interview with Karlee Weinmann published in the “Business Insider-War room, December 19th, 2011 - If You’re Sifting Through a Pile of Applications, You’ve Already Failed. 

_ _ _ _ _

“You wrote a recent post I’d like to ask you about specifically. It featured a 60 Minutes clip report on homeless families, and you called it “Tis The Season To Hire Someone.” I’m interested in hearing why you believe that.”

(Karlee’s answer) “I watch media like a hawk. I specifically watch the way that we talk about labor and we talk about workers. I think more and more, media’s catching up to reality and 60 Minutes is a good example of this. We’re starting to talk about the real impact of poverty and homelessness on our society.

One of the things that we always hear with capitalism is that labor is an expense, and we should try to minimize expenses, and we should try to maximize profitability and maximize productivity. And when business owners and shareholders make more money, there’s a value for everybody. Well that turns out not to be the case, because when we maximize productivity and we lay people off, even when the people at the top are making more money, it’s not cascading down.

Sometimes, there just is a value in employing people even if that job isn’t 100% productive or efficient. There is a value in society by employing people. It keeps people off the street, it keeps them insured, it keeps their families intact.

Even if you have a job that’s been unfilled and you can’t necessarily find someone who 100% fits the qualifications, it’s a benefit to society and eventually to you as a business owner and taxpayer to hire someone who’s a 40% fit, a 50% fit, or even a 60% fit, and just train them.”

_ _ _ _ _

I love the way she thinks!

For the complete article, read more at: Business Insider

HR – Many of America’s Poor Work Somewhere

Posted on by
Reply

If you work in HR you develop policies and programs that effect employees and/or family members who live “below the line.” Time Magazine article: “Below the Line” (November 28, 2011), is a comprehensive summary of the growing issue of poverty.

“(The poor includes) low wage earners, single mothers, disabled veterans, the elderly, immigrants, marginalized factory workers, the severely mentally ill, the formerly incarcerated, the under-educated and the fallen middle class.  They live in Appalachia and the inner city and the wealthiest suburbs” (p. 35).

The number of people living below the poverty line is apparently at the highest number since data was first gathered – 46.2 million Americans.

It got me to thinking about how human resources interacts with the lowest paid staff. Since the shortest, easiest way out of poverty involves getting and keeping a decent-paying job, it’s useful for HR professionals to understand the reality of poverty.

Just a few myths:

1.  Poor people don’t have jobs.

Though most of the poor are physically or mentally unable to work, many work more than one job.  The problem is that 10 hours here and 20 hours there at minimum wage will not lift a family from poverty.  Leading to one of the reasons families fall into poverty – lack of healthcare coverage

2. It is all about money

At greater levels today, middle class families slip into poverty due to a major health incident and the lack of health coverage. In addition, as mentioned in the Time article, if you don’t have a permanent address, phone, transportation and computer it can be difficult to get and keep a job.

3.  People with mental illness can’t work

On the contrary, of those with a diagnosable mental disorder, only a fraction have disorders that are difficult to treat/linked and most often associated with inability to work.  Most forms of mental illness respond to a combination of talk therapy and medication.  But here’s the catch, employees typically need insurance to gain access to these treatment options.

4. Poor people lack a work ethic

Again, poor adults often work more than one part-time position while juggling care for families or elderly relatives. The problem is that pay is too low to save against a rainy day.

5. The poor is at fault for not having proper training

Forces that significantly increase poverty are systemic: off-shoring  good paying jobs; the collapse of manufacturing businesses; massive cutbacks in highly skilled jobs, etc. are more connected to business health and economic conditions and not individually based phenomena.

HR programs and activities that can support employee financial stability

  • creating schedules with 20-30 minimum hours
  • providing financial literacy programs
  • jobs re-training programs (grant money is sometimes available)
  • working with community service providers that support employment
  • volunteering for work readiness training nonprofits
  • advocating for “workforce” housing projects
  • advocating for public transportation
  • locating businesses where workers have access to public transportation
  • offering reimbursement or partial reimbursement for education
  • consider waiving nepotism provisions so family members can work together
  • using company buying power to provide employee purchasing discounts

Top Ten Reasons Why I Follow People on Twitter

Posted on by
Reply

My Twitter account is a business endeavor. Others may be on Twitter as a more personal thing. It’s been a year since I joined and the connections I’ve made have been well worth the time. There is a Twitter bug going around apparently that unfollows people randomly and I decided to pull this post from the archives – all about why I would follow people.  My logic is personal and not necessarily right for others.  It’s just my way of trying to bring my own content and using my connection time to advance my knowledge and thinking through following others.

What does my current “following” list look like?

My current “people I’m following” list is a wonderful collection of folks from around the globe. They are not all business – they are corporate, entrepreneurs, scientists, students and homemakers with a point of view.  It is a great combination of different ages, genders, and ethnic groups. I have many friends in Canada, Australia, India, the UK, Sweden and of course, in my native US. I have increasingly connected with young folks in India and Africa. There are probably people from other countries that I don’t know about as well. Thank you all for the intellectually challenging discussions and unique perspectives.

Reasons I follow others:

  1. They know about and tweet about something I’m interested in;
  2. They tweet throughout the day not 15 tweets one right after the other – sprinkler not fire hose;
  3. They tweet about a combination of things: orig content, news, personal observations & self promotion;
  4. The ratio of content to self-promotion is a reasonable 80/20;
  5. They offer something unique – different perspective, creative thoughts;
  6. They seem to care about fellow human beings on this planet in a genuine way (except maybe the news sources I follow);
  7. They take the time to comment once in a while about what others have posted: listening;
  8. They generally respond if I re-tweet their awesome content;
  9. They’re funny; and
  10. Their links usually work.

By definition, this eliminates weird porn spammers.  Who in the world do they think they’re fooling?

Happy Tweeting!!

Nonprofit Foundation– victimized by charismatic criminal

Posted on by
Reply

Mouli Cohen – Convicted of 31 Counts – The Vanguard Foundation

You may find it surprising how vulnerable nonprofit boards are to charismatic promises and how often banks fail to approach boards with concerns. When petty financial impropriety takes place the board is under pressure to simply terminate the employee.

  • It may not have involved enough money to try to retrieve the funds
  • The employee may no longer have the funds;
  • Considerations of negation public perception leads many boards to write off the sum and move toward better financial procedures.

However, in cases where the amounts are large enough, when federal charges apply or when the issue is widespread and involves members of the public, the organization will have no choice but to disclose the issue. When the issue is significant enough to force an organization out of business, criminal charges are likely.

A spectacular example where financial clues could have prompted board and donor notice took place on the West Coast with the Vanguard Public Foundation (not the Vanguard Charitable Fund) incorporated in 1972. According to Blue Avocado, the Vanguard operated in a manner consistent with its mission of social justice and equality until its 2002 connection with now-disgraced entrepreneur, Samuel “Mouli” Cohen (1).

Cohen’s tenure continued despite the presence of obvious red flags:

  • Promises for returns that were too good to be true;
  • Horrendous operating losses;
  • 2007 financial statements showing assets were a fraction of its liabilities;
  • Loans to the organization by officers and directors (1,2) a major red flag.

In retrospect, we know that these activities continued apparently unchecked by Vanguard’s board, and apparently unnoticed by donors or their auditors.

On August 10th, 2010, The Chronicle of Philanthropy reported that Mr. Cohen was indicted for defrauding the foundation of some $30 million (3).  Part II of the Blue Avocado feature story noted 19 counts of wire fraud and 13 counts of money laundering (Cohen, Sept. 2010). This is a story about financial malfeasance, the strong influences of a charismatic man making promises of great investment returns and the silence of folks who should have known better.

On November 12th, 2011 Blue Avocado reported that Mr. Cohen was convicted on 31 counts including money laundering and tax evasion (4). It is a sad post script to an organization that fell victim to a smooth talking criminal.

Here is the verdict: Mouli Cohen Jury Verdict

_________________________________________________________________

1 Cohen, Rick (August 3rd, 2010) Blue Avocado, Decline and Fall of the Vanguard Foundation, accessed February 2011 at: http://www.blueavocado.org/node/562

2 Newsupdates (August 10, 2010) Philanthropy Today, The Chronicle of Philanthropy, Calif. Businessman Charged with Defrauding Nonprofit Fund, accessed February 2011 at: http://philanthropy.com/blogs/philanthropytoday/calif-businessman-charged-with-defrauding-nonprofit-fund/26111

3 Cohen, Rick (September 27, 2010) Blue Avocado, How Did this Happen? Part II of the Vanguard Foundation Story, accessed February 2011 at: http://www.blueavocado.org/node/577

4  Blue Avocado Investigates (November 12, 2011) Vanguard Foundation Update, accessed November at: http://blueavocado.org/content/vanguard-foundation-update

When Institutions put Secular Goals Ahead of Everything Else

Posted on by
Reply

Not all institutions and corporations are evil.  Many do an excellent job of balancing ambitious secular goals with a socially responsible approach.  These examples are less likely to be sensationalized in the popular press, however.  I found some examples on the website Socialbrite.org.  They singled out Molson Coors, Tyson Foods, and Haagen-Dazs as companies that do well while balancing social goals. There are others. These companies enjoy financial success and public support while managing to treat employees, customers and the general public with respect.

When the formal structure includes a code of ethics, honesty and integrity and those in power behave consistently with this code, the achievement of business goals is more likely to be balanced with social responsibility. Social responsibility might mean respect for employees, customers and the general public; stewardship of the environment; or safety for vulnerable groups – children, elderly and disabled folks.

Instant news and the transparency of America’s legal system are airing some organizations’ dirty laundry, however.  We’ve seen recent examples of what happens when a company or public agency puts secular goals ahead of all else.  The secular goal might be winning or sustaining a winning team, protecting one person’s power, getting a gossip scoop or putting profits ahead of employee and customer health.

When a less-than-ethical workplace culture aligns with an organization’s strong push toward secular goals the result can be an atmosphere in which wrong-doing is overlooked or even rewarded.

When the formal structure does not include a code of ethics and the secular goal is compelling, leadership may support decisions and people who further the goals and ignore or silence those who challenge them.  In this dynamic, those involved most closely with the secular goal have power (perhaps the athletics staff at Penn State) and may actually become more powerful than the formal power hierarchy. Strong college athletics means recognition, endowment donations and more potential students.

Following this line of thinking, a college athletics department could use everyone’s desire for winning to create an atmosphere where folks hesitate to speak up for fear of offending those with the real power. They may also fear more overt retaliation or being discredited. This power can be so strong that it might make employees question what they saw with their own eyes.  It might also lead them to think that the right place to report it is the athletics leadership or college security instead of community law enforcement. When this kind of dynamic takes place in a public agency of college and when it involves children it is an extreme violation of the public trust.

The former Schenectady, New York’s school maintenance chief was able to commit serious crimes against fellow employees with impunity because he held great power.  Steve Raucci created an all-powerful position for himself as both management and union chief in the city’s maintenance department. This inappropriate dual power position allowed him to control a wide range of employees.  He could use his power to punish those who questioned him (punishments ranged from marginalization and public berating to vandalism and attempted bombings!), and to favor those who towed the party line.

Here’s a list of what seems to be a pattern of values miss-steps:

The Catholic Church seemed to have wanted to protect the church’s reputation and it’s financial assets more than it wanted to protect children. Molestation was covered up; victims were discredited; allegations were administratively ignored. Much of the funding for the church’s activities comes from well-meaning Catholic families.

Boston Globe Spotlight

Steve Raucci’s power apparently inoculated him from the consequences of his intimidation, abuse and crimes against Schenectady school employees. Union leadership spoke up repeatedly about the inappropriate dual role and employee “enemies” were ignored or victimized by vandalism and attempted bombings. Aside from the employee fears this dynamic caused, this corrupt campaign of power was carried out with public funds.

NPR’s Petty Tyrant

Penn State’s athletics department and college administration appears to have protected the athletics program and covered up or ignored sexual allegations against one of the coaches. Employees ignored what they saw; employees went to athletics leadership instead of the police; victim allegations were mishandled.  Other allegations of misconduct by athletes in the program went unpunished and the executive in charge of disciplining students apparently quit over it. As a public university, activities are funded with public money.

Penn State Grand Jury Report 

News of the world wanted gossip scoops so badly that crimes committed to get them were apparently worth the potential risk. Cellphones were hacked; victims were paid off; management denies it knew about any of it.

Washington Post on News of the World

Tonawanda Coke’s Buffalo, NY plant continued to pollute the soil and water in the surrounding area with benzene.  This created a blue haze that allegedly led to increased cancer rates. Victims complaints were ignored for years.

NPR on Tonawanda

Employees’ Toxic, Disgruntled and Criminal Behavior at Work

Posted on by
2

Introduction

I am often engaged to help companies resolve the conduct of one employee who’s wreaking havoc in the workplace. After my book came out: Toxic Employees: great companies resolve this problem, you can too!” I was increasingly asked to define the term:Toxic Employee. I hear folks use the term as though toxic employees are just poor performers or as if all toxic employees were criminals. Though employee criminal behavior can be covered up using toxic tactics, the proportion of overt criminal conduct in the workplace is very small relative to straight-forward toxic behavior.

On a scale from very damaging to less damaging employee behavior I would rank criminal conduct in the workplace as the worse. By criminal, I mean embezzlement, overt discrimination of a protected class or intentional violation of a state or federal statute. This behavior carries intent to do wrong and potentially direct financial loss to the company. At the other end of the continuum, I would place general poor employee performance where the employee is trying to do well but just doesn’t have the skills.

What’s the difference?

In my opinion, ranked from least harmful for the workplace and coworkers to the most harmful, these are the subtle differences I see:

Poor performer: as the term implies, these are individuals who don’t measure up in carrying out their duties. These employees mean to do well they just don’t have the skills. Over time and with interventions, these workers can either improve their performance or transition into disgruntled employees. This depends on the supervisor’s skill and handling of performance interventions and the employee’s ability to accept the reality of their own performance short-comings.

Disgruntled employee: these employees are unhappy about something done or said by the “company,” “management” or a supervisor. They could be a poor technical performer but they may also be performing well but in disagreement with the company. Perhaps they don’t like the way they are supervised or they might not like the company’s interpretation of a particular policy. These employees generally see those in management as bad, paternalistic or authoritarian. Often disgruntled employees are someone with whom the company has expressed dissatisfaction. When a company attempts to correct or improve the performance of an individual who does disagrees with the assessment troubles can begin. Supervisors do not always pay close attention to the statements, questions or misunderstandings from the employee in question. If the supervisor slows down and responds to the content of the employee questions or observations some issues might be resolved amicably.  Unfortunately, some inexperienced or insecure supervisors hear questions as insubordination and continue with increasingly harsh evaluations over time. This process will lead to employee disgruntlement.

Human resource professionals and consultants specializing in employee relations have an alert antenna for disgruntled employees because they are several times more likely to sue the company over a dispute. Monetary settlements with former employees is often the painful fallout of failure to deal quickly and professionally with a disgruntled employee situation. Having said that, even poor performers can remain friendly with the company while acknowledging a poor performance fit. This outcome requires deft response by supervisors and human resource professionals. Prevention is so much easier than having to respond to an employee’s attorney!

Toxic employee: this is an employee with a particular approach to the workplace defined by personal motives and not the company’s goals or best interest. Toxic employees may be good performers in a technical sense but their manipulative tactics result in harm to coworkers and the company’s workplace atmosphere over time. These employees do not necessarily see their manipulation and abuse of fellow workers as such and generally resent or reject supervisory feedback that attempts to improve their “people skills.”  In fact they are very skilled at reading people and appealing to their desire to be liked at work in a way that increases their informal power in the workplace.

Toxic employees do not generally improve as a result of performance interventions and will ratchet up their negative conduct when under threat. Strategic, toxic employees sometimes mount a retaliatory campaign to diminish the credibility of the evaluating supervisor individually, or perhaps company leadership generally.  Supervisors I coach name this dynamic as their number one source of stress and unhappiness at work. There are some patterns of how companies are forced into dealing with toxic employees.

  • A new leader comes into the workplace with little tolerance for this work style and leads the organization in an overhaul of workplace culture
  • The toxic employee targets a protected class employee with vitriol
  • Coworkers unite and approach management to deal with the toxic behavior

Unresolved toxic employee behavior can be extreme co-worker stress and physical ailments.  A failure to meet company goals continues because employees are so distracted by chosing up sides and protecting informal power. The longer this goes on, the more damaging to coworkers and the company. For a fuller explanation of the phenomenon of the toxic employee, see “Toxic Employees: great companies resolve this problem, you can too!” available at benoitconsulting.com.

Criminal employee: these employees ignore company policies, violate federal or state statutes, engage in financial malfeasance or other forms of theft. In companies with proper financial process checks and balances, embezzlement may be the result of a complex and intricate scheme.  In companies without the proper procedures and oversight, malfeasance my be less subtle (favors for friends, free tickets, etc.) with little effort to cover it up. Sometimes criminals resort to toxic tactics: verbal abuse, threats and manipulation of others to prevent discovery of wrong-doing but this is only a means to achieve the end.  The toxic atmosphere created to prevent discovery of wrong-doing can go on for generations and can be much worse for the organization that the original illegal acts. Here’s a modern day example: This American Life: Steve Raucci

Another type of criminal behavior in the workplace involves assaults or threats of violence toward supervisors or fellow employees. Of all negative employees, embezzlers and/or assaultive employees appear to have overt intent to take something or harm someone. This conduct harms the company in a number of ways.  First, embezzlement means immediate financial loss which is rarely recovered.  Second, embarrassment and loss of community reputation may take years to overcome particularly when inadequate company procedures contributed to the crime.  Finally, and most importantly they are a threat to coworker safety through physical assault and emotional distress. Severe assaults or workplace homicides traumatize employees with long-lasting effect.  Negligent retention claims are likely if the proclivity for violence was discoverable in advance through proper reference and background verification.

Sound leadership training programs must address the issue of negative employees as the best means to prevent the more serious behaviors described here.  Inexperienced supervisors who don’t receive proper mentoring and backing by company leadership will end up being victimized by certain types of supervisees.

Special Interest Group or Maine “Voters”

Posted on by
Reply

Same Day Voter Registration in Maine

Maine voters overwhelmingly (60%) repealed a conservative-backed Initiative that would have prevented same-day voter registration, state law for 38 years.  Maine Republican Chairman, Charlie Webster has championed the move to discard same-day registration. The discard was rushed through the Maine Legislature earlier this year. Mobilized by irritation over the measure, 71,000 signatures were collected and a repeal of the hastily enacted initiative was included yesterday’s statewide ballot. Groups leading the restoration of same-day-voter registration were Maine Democrats, the Maine People’s Alliance and the Maine Civil Liberties Union.

In a local news interview broadcast on public radio November 9th, Mr. Webster shared some thoughts about how the repeal effort was funded.  Mr. Webster was a bit scratchy about one particular donor to the repeal campaign who he mentioned by name.  Then he said that the repeal efforts extravagant spending (“out-spending” the losing side) was to blame for the repeal’s success.  Questions have also been raised about how Webster’s referendum campaign was funded, however.

Finally, Mr. Webster referred to this one large donor as pushing his weight around to support special interest groups.  In fact, Maine voters were offended by the original measure’s assertion that preventing same-day voter registration was needed to prevent voter fraud.  Supporters of the original discard presented no legitimate data that voter fraud has taken place at Maine polls. In an off-year election, 60% of the vote is kind of difficult to explain away as a “special interest” group.  Mathematically, it seems clear that the successful repeal was supported by a coalition of voters from more than one political party.

I’m just saying that when a combination of voters from both parties unite to do sensible things, it seems wrong to continue to promote it as an unfair partisan conflict.

How Workplace Culture Effects Business Success

Posted on by
Reply

How workplace culture affects business success

Companies succeed in the short run just by having good products, even with unethical practices and abusive employee behavior.  The problem is, things change. A competitor comes into the market offering your products but has better workplace conditions.  Now your employees want to work there. Or, one of your employees becomes disgruntled over how they are treated by an abusive employee or supervisor and decides to hire an attorney.  You settle with them to avoid having your poor management practices publicized $10,000 to 50,000 from the bottom line. Another change scenario is that you begin to hire generation X and Y employees.  They will quickly tire of your poor practices. When word gets around that you pay little attention to this Gen X and Gen Y will not apply.  Finally, if you operate without a code of ethics or values your workplace is driven by supervisor and employee personal values.  Add aggressive goals and tactics and you have News of the World and ENRON.

Best workplace culture example

Well known examples where a sustained company culture has clearly served financial success are Google, Zappos and Netflix. Zappos CEO, Tony Hsieh tells of both the company hiring practices aimed at finding candidates who fit with the company values and a new employee orientation process that quickly identifies workers who are a poor fit. In a key-note at this year’s SHRM annual conference that Company culture is the “number one priority.” His most recent blog post says it all Your Culture Is Your Brand.

Zappos has cultivated standards for workplace atmosphere that support staff efforts towards company goals, encouraged the atmosphere with company mechanisms (meetings, communication, compensation and performance evaluation), controlled that new employees coming in fit well with the desired culture and then, when employees demonstrate that they don’t fit well, they are moved out of the organization. The theory is that employees working there thrive in the culture.  They are happy, satisfied and fulfilled. As HR folks say, less bad turnover, only good turnover.

It’s in the literature

There are a number of excellent books on the subject of Culture – discussing what it is; how to get it; and why it supports success.  Here’s just what I have on my own bookshelf:

1964 (Blake & Mouton) The Managerial Grid that urged managers to focus on both people and results – used to acculturate me at UNUM in the mid 70s;

1982 (Peters & Waterman) In Search of Excellence in which the principles of “Back to the Basics” reinforces the simultaneous priorities that must be balanced;

2001 (Collins) Good to Great describing the “culture of discipline” in order to avoid creativity-killing bureaucracy;

2001 (Ashby & Pell) Embracing Excellence chapter two: The “qualities and characteristics of a great corporate culture;”

2002 Hesselbein & Johnston) On High Performance Organizations in which the authors discuss the power of mindfulness, a passion for the business and strategic generosity;

2011 (Rhoades) Built on Values: success stories of three companies who had purposeful workplace culture and values;

It’s what employees want and need to be healthy and productive at work

Happy, satisfied employees are less distracted and more focused on company goals.  It happens that the characteristics employees find supportive, collectively represent the kind of environment in which company financial goals are more likely to be met.  This would be where employees are treated with respect; given clear direction about  their work; compensated fairly, etc.  Finally, why in the world would anyone choose to create or work in a company where everyone is burned out, unhappy and disrespectful to each other? It stands to reason that employees who feel a passion for their work; who are rewarded for both results and demonstrating company values; and treated respectfully by supervisors and co-workers would reach a higher level of functioning.

Good employees want goals to meet and welcome being held accountable. Further, they want others to be held to an equitable standard.  Nothing irritates employees more than watching poor performers hanging around, making mistakes, failing to plan and generally making more work for others with no apparent consequences.  Thoughtful, respectful feedback to employees by capable supervisors greatly increase the chances that most employees are performing at their highest functioning level.

Unrealized, disorganized or person-centered culture

When the company’s culture is not unified/strong or it’s tied too closely to one leader’s own style the workplace can be buffeted by CEO or COO turnover.  Companies who don’t pay attention to defining a desired culture end up depending too much upon the personal style and philosophy of a particular person.  When this leader leaves and a new leader comes on board, the values and philosophies of the new leader challenges long-standing company assumptions. A period of confusion commences. Employees are distracted trying to understand the new landscape.  And again, employees are not necessarily focused on the bottom line. A strong, positive and institutionalized workplace culture can help an organization weather many storms, including the loss of a beloved leader or changes in the external environment because strong positive culture takes on a power and force of its own.

One of today’s growing employee relations issues is stress.  Workplace characteristics of lean staffing, financial pressure and high demands result in employee fatigue and stress. These in turn cause absenteeism (missing work) and presenteeism (workers present but not mentally at work).  Rates of depression (or rates of its diagnosis) among employees are on the rise.  Interestingly, employees report inattentive and poor quality management at work as a key reason for both stress and eventually leaving their position.  These problems develop over time and the only way to reverse this is to assess your culture and decide to do things differently – culture improvement project.

Honesty, Ethics and Integrity

A discussion of ethics and integrity is important enough to mention it more than once. Most superb, financially successful companies who are well-respected in their community, the U.S. or the world promote honesty, integrity or lawfulness as one of their core values.  Without a stated value which is reinforced by company structures, it is difficult to get large numbers of employees to approach their work consistently with these values. Most experts feel that it was the absence of this particular set of values that sunk ENRON and pulled its accounting firm, employees and the local economy down with it. It also sent a few folks to jail.

Next steps

After realizing that you have no stated culture or workplace brand attention turns to articulating a desired brand.  This starts with understanding what your good performers want and need. Recruitment, Workplace Branding and Employee Satisfaction