31 Mar
Workforce Management’s newsletter started an online debate this week on what to do when managers complained about smokers taking more or longer breaks to catch some puffs during every work day. They said other employees complained it was unfair. The hidden message, of course, let HR or someone in "upper management" give us a magic rule to beat these people with.
Hey, this is what leadership is about on a day-to-day basis. Every leadeship "problem" works the same way. I was disturbed that so many HR readers jumped in with various possible rules, perhaps the best of which was to have the smokers keep track of their time away from their jobs. At least that puts the problem on the perpetrators and also honors their honesty. Of course some would still abuse things and it only takes one bad example to put blame on all of them. At least it comes close to a coaching solution that gives responsibility to adult employees rather than trying to substitute childish rules.
The real key, of course is leadership by direct supervisors. There will always be issues to keep on top of with people whenever they work in groups. There is no magic formula for helping people problems work out logically other than the magic of one-on-one leadership.
My question to the discussion board, which no one took up, was – why go for rules when we have Best Buy’s example of a complete workplace with no time-keeping rules. They call it something like "Results-Only Work Hours" in which every employee determines what days and times they need to be at work… as long as they get results (usually set via objectives, for instance). This frees people to go to doctors, lawyers, even take days off when they need to. Naturally some will abuse it, but, guess what, someone will always abuse every rule as well, no matter how firmly it’s stated.
A great leader will use a coaching approach to ask an abuser (and just the one abuser, not the entire group)… what’s going on, what they really want, what needs to happen, etc. – the same five coaching quesitons leaders always apply. Out of that should come a commitment, personally made by the staff member, to try improvements until complaints stop. With a little coaching help, employees should be able to work this out to the satisfaction of their team mates. If they can’t, they need more coaching, but not to be treated like children with swipe-in time clocks, massive punishment or another couple of pages in the all-too-heavy employee handbook.
2 Responses for "Lack of Leadership Skill Affects Every Area"
Jack Welch’s latest book, “Winning” similarly does not favour a reliance on rules. His audience, however, is not managers, but rather employees. He addresses those employees who request accommodation under work-life balance initiatives – and who might refer to corporate rules for work-life balance to support their request.
Welch urges those who seek flexibility in their working lives not to depend on company policies on work-life balance. He warns that those who do cite such policies repeatedly become known as “but the company says…” types.
To employees who look for flexibility he has the following advice. “Bosses are agreeable to giving people the flexibility to come and go as they please – but only after they have earned it with their performance. Work-life balance really works as an old-fashioned chit system. People with great performance accumulate chits, which can be traded in for flexibility. The more chits you have, the greater your opportunity to work when and where and how you want.
Real work-life balance arrangements are negotiated by bosses and individuals on an as-needed basis, using this chit system.”
The place Welch sees for corporate-wide support of work-life balance is in the organizational culture, not in rules.
“The chit system requires a special environment – a supportive organizational culture where bosses are encouraged to strike creative work-life deals with higher performers, and high performers feel entirely comfortable talking with their bosses about their work-life challenges.
In such a culture, bosses have the freedom to reward results with flexibility. They don’t have to clear work-life arrangements with HR, nor do they feel forced to adhere to formalized work-life policies that actually might limit their ability to win, rather than enhance it.”
Thanks Craig, I’d forgotten the reference to this in Welch’s book, but it reinforces the idea there are always two aspects to every issue. In this case, as you note, employees as well as managers are quick to ask for “rules” from a mysterious “them” who manage the workplace. If only “they” would give us a rule, we would be assured of having X that we want or not having Y that we don’t want. It’s so much easier than approaching the person who can deliver what we want and negotiating a solution. In the one example – “tell those smokers to follow time-keeping rule” or for employees it might be “tell company managers to give us more flex time for doctor appointments.” Neither group leaps to the more logical conclusion that they should ask the one other person involved to make the change they want. Instead “make a rule for everyone, (so I can have what I want)” seems like the easier way.
Leave a reply