What's Your Bench Strength?

Photo by Amine rock hoovr on Unsplash

Many companies focus on their A players to the exclusion of almost everyone else. There's nothing wrong with A players, but failing to focus on bench strength is a serious mistake. 

Do you have depth on your bench? Will a customer get the assistance they need if an employee is out of the office for lunch, sickness, or vacation? Will the loss of a key employee (whether short or long-term) have a significant negative impact on your organization? What about your succession planning? Do you have more than one person who is being prepared for each position? It may not always be possible on that last one, but we should strive to make that happen. After all, we never know what might happen tomorrow.

If your bench is shallow or has gaps, it's time to address the issue. What are some actions you can take to build your bench strength?

• Have a training plan. On-the-job training in many organizations is haphazard at best. 
• Cross-training is essential. Set up a matrix, identifying the major tasks, and assign names. Who has the primary responsibility for this task? Who is their backup? For critical tasks, it might be a good idea to add someone who is expected to at least be able to muddle through.
• Plan for succession. Who do you have with the potential to move up? Once you identify them, get them on a development plan to prepare them for future responsibilities.
• Build a learning culture. Teaching people how to learn is critical and builds capacity for quick reskilling.
• Set up a support structure that captures knowledge in some fashion. Documenting processes can help train tasks more quickly or as a last resort, make it possible for someone to step in and figure things out much more quickly.

Yes, it's great to have some stars on the team, but personally, I would prefer to have a full bench of solid players.

 

It's All Funny Until It's Not

Photo by Tengyart on Unsplash

Let's talk about professionalism in the workplace. There is nothing wrong with having fun at work--you can still get your work done and enjoy the people you work with. However, I am fairly strict about keeping the fun within certain parameters. 

I have done many workplace investigations for sexual harassment and discrimination of various types. A large percentage of the time, the complaints have come about because people were "joking around" and everyone thought it was funny until it went too far, or a new person came in who didn't find the banter funny, or it reached the point where a person no longer felt they could pretend they thought it was funny. Yes, I do know some people seem to get offended over what seem to be very minor things, but often these microaggressions are very hurtful. We don't recognize them because we have different life experiences.

So my general rule of thumb is that it's okay to have fun but certain types of humor are out of bounds, and that is humor relating to sex or gender or any other protected class. Slurs, name-calling, or other types of personal attacks are also not okay. Boundaries for physical contact also need to be clear. Texas is the hugging capital of the United States, I think, but as a rule, unless you know the other party is open to that, control yourself. Even if hugging is accepted, there is a matter of degree.

Managers should set the example and correct behavior that crosses the line. Have fun, but be responsible. (Think drinking--one or two drinks is usually acceptable, but too many can land you in trouble.)

If You Can't Hire Them

 

Photo by Lagos Techie on Unsplash

There is a lot of talk about not being able to hire right now (see this Capelli article for a rebuttal), but periodically, I help employers talk through the "buy versus develop" question about people. I have always been predisposed to grow my own versus buy new, so I suppose it is best to just get that bias on the table to start with. It's part of the reason I keep a car until it falls apart in the street. I know what I have and as long as it is performing satisfactorily, why take a chance on an expensive shiny new vehicle? Regular maintenance and an occasional part overhaul have tended to be less expensive and more satisfactory for me.

Regardless of your current hiring situation, there is a seismic shift in the skills needed in the economy going on. New career fields are opening up, with the numbers of skilled workers needed growing very quickly. If you have watched the news lately, cybersecurity should be an obvious example. You can hire the technical expertise for cybersecurity from an IT company with that expertise, but much of the risk involves people, not hardware and software. So even having the best company on retainer can't always keep you safe. This means pretty much every employee who has access to a computer or other smart device needs to have some level of expertise in cybersecurity. In addition to cybersecurity, changes in laws and regulations in many industries call for a constant update in compliance, tools, and techniques.

I was talking to someone this week who told me the employers she talks to just want someone who will show up dependably and work. I hear that some as well, but I also find employers also want experience and proven expertise so they don't have to spend much time training. I get it. As in most things, there is always a tradeoff between I need it now, I need it good, and I need it cheap. For some reason, employers tend to think they can get it all. Not so.

I would suggest companies need to do a thorough review to determine the types of skills that employees need now and may not have (gap analysis), but also look ahead to prepare for the future, in order to develop some skills before the need is upon you. You may not be able to hire that skill set--so begin developing your good people with updated skills.

Time Off? Or Not?

 

Photo by Toa Heftiba on Unsplash

This week I have had some discussions around paid time off and about hiring/retention. They are interrelated. Most companies offer time off to be competitive in recruitment and retention. However, paid time off is also important for employee health, and it is a good internal control measure for the company. However, let's focus on paid time off as a recruitment and retention tool. Paid time off is especially appreciated by younger employees.

Many employers try to keep track of what other employers are doing in order to stay competitive in the marketplace. Since there are really no rules federally or in Texas for vacation/sick/PTO/holiday time, employers can be fairly creative in designing their programs and have a lot of options for how they structure their paid time off programs.

There are still some companies that have no paid time off or any kind, but most companies have at least some. Here are a couple of questions for consideration:

1. If an employer feels that an employee who takes all of the time allowed under their policy is somehow taking advantage of the employer, then should you be offering that much paid time off?
2. If an employee feels they cannot take the time off permitted under their employer's policy (regardless of the reason), then is your paid time off really an effective retention tool or could it be a source of dissatisfaction?

In asking these questions, I am not talking about unscheduled time off. It is always a problem to have to shuffle schedules without notice, although there is no way to avoid it occasionally. What I am talking about is scheduled time off that does not exceed the amount of time permitted under the policy you made.

Paid time off is a part of an employee's compensation. Just as an employee would feel cheated if you shorted their paycheck, they often feel cheated if you short them on time, whether it is because you express frustration if they ask for time off or they know there is so much work to do that taking the time makes them feel guilty.

Is your time off policy a true reflection of the benefit your company offers or is it a false promise?

Carrots and Sticks

Photo by Dan Burton on Unsplash

 I hear many employers complain about the "everybody gets a trophy" mindset of "young people today." Our younger employees (and really, the Millennials many complain about are not that young anymore) want many of the same things we do, they are just more willing to ask for it. Everyone wants to be recognized for doing a good job.

Some of you have probably heard the expression, "The absence of pain is its own reward." In other words, if no one is yelling at you, life is good. You have probably also heard, "What gets measured, gets done." The stick aligns with the first statement. The stick tells an employee the minimum bar. If I go below this, I'll get yelled at. So the goal is to stay above that line. However, the stick doesn't tell me what you really want, just what you don't want.

This brings us to the carrot. We tend to think of the carrot as money, but the carrot is recognition. Yes, money can be a carrot, but truthfully, it isn't the most effective carrot over the long term. The carrot is feedback to show what gets measured, gets done. In other words, I know what you want, so I can give it to you. Carrots allow us to raise performance, not just get it to exceed the minimum required.

We Boomers may have grown up in the era of the stick, but we liked the carrots too and we worked at our best for those who served them to us. Some methods are more effective than others, especially if you are trying to change behaviors or raise performance to higher levels. You need to tell people exactly what they did that you are pleased with and why it's important. If I know what you are happy about, I will likely repeat that behavior again.

Regular servings of carrots will get you more than regular beatings with sticks.

Looking Ahead

Photo by Kristian Løvstad on Unsplash

 Happy New Year! Aren't we glad 2020 is behind us? Not that 2021 is all that great starting out on the COVID-19 front, but somehow, it seems there is light at the end of the tunnel. It may all be psychological, but I don't care. I'll take what I can get.

I don't know about you, but 2020 took a toll on business. I went from very busy to nothing in a matter of a couple of weeks. That should have meant I got a lot of business things off the ground that had been in the "when I get around to it" pile and this blog should have been easy to keep up. But I have to admit, those things did not happen. In part, because we were homeschooling the granddaughter and babysitting the grandkids, since their parents luckily were able to continue to work. There were also parent care issues in 2020. But I think the biggest issue was uncertainty. 

I had a plan for 2020 and was making progress and all of a sudden, that plan wasn't going to work. I made adjustments, but my clients' plans were also going bust. If there had been an end date in sight, it would have been okay, but most of my clients are very small businesses, and the uncertainty meant they hunkered down. I answered a lot of questions about the FFCRA and the CARES Act, but for the most part, my clients put everything on hold and went into survival mode. Other than a few employee issues that absolutely could not wait, those businesses put everything else on ice. They're starting to peek out of their shelters now, but none appear to be returning to anything approaching normal.

We're in a new year. Other than for lessons learned, 2020 is in the rearview mirror. And I did learn some lessons. Hopefully, you did too, or 2020 could be a complete bust.

Uncertainty still exists, but I have made a plan for 2021 that takes that into consideration, and I am working on new lines of business. I'll let you know when I am ready to announce the launch. I'm in a full-court press for the end of the first quarter.

High Potential or Right Potential?

Photo by Chris Chow on Unsplash

I hear a lot about high potential employees. I also hear many references to A, B and C players. The first is about the future and the other is about current performance. Personally, I am not much in favor of categorizing people in either system, although I understand what the proponents are trying to do.

Both systems are based upon subjective opinions and often, unclear criteria. They are also judgments made at a specific point in time. I have seen people move between the categories depending upon the organization, job, manager and life circumstances at that time.

But the issue that causes me the most concern is the focus on individual contribution. I am not saying individual contributions are not important, because they are. However, most companies state teamwork is important to them. The best individual contributors are not necessarily the best in a team environment (although they can be). You have only to look at various team sports to see how a high-performing star performer can disrupt the performance of the overall team.

Yes, if the job we have is largely independent, then a star performer may be the best option. However, in a team environment, I am more interested in bench strength and complementary talents. I want the right potential for the position I want them to play--both now and in the future. Once I place a person in a position, I need to constantly evaluate if they may be more effective to the team in another role. That may change over time.

Do We Have the Right Tools?

Photo by Barn Images on Unsplash

This isn't a picture of my husband's garage, but it could be. The man has a 4-car garage in which neither of our cars can fit because of the number of tools, but it seems almost every project requires a different one. How many different screwdrivers can there be?

But I admit he takes care of all those fix-it jobs around the house that I cause. If something can be broken, I will break it. So there's a reason for all those tools (or so I am told).

In the last blog post, I talked about setting clear expectations. Obviously, people have to know what you want before they can do it. However, if they don't have the proper tools, they may still fall short. And that's on managers, not the employees.

In order for employees to perform to standards, they need a clear understanding of the performance standards and they must have the proper tools. These tools include proper training, required tools (equipment and supplies), and adequate time. If we have not provided those items, it isn't fair to chastise the employee. Yes, I have seen employees do extraordinary things with a shortage of all of these things, especially in a crisis, but it isn't reasonable to expect superior results with inferior support on a continuing basis.

Ask yourself, have I:

• Provided comprehensive training on the task I want them to accomplish?
• Given them adequate supplies and equipment to get the job done safely?
• Provided enough time to do a quality, safe job?

It's our job to provide what employees need to meet our expectations for performance. Let's not let them down.

Do They Know What You Want?

Photo by Ameer Basheer on Unsplash

Today I had a coaching session. Nothing new there, but some people are a joy to work with because they really want to make themselves better leaders and are willing to do the work necessary to make that happen. David is one of those people.

He asked for a book to read during a hiatus in our coaching schedule due to his company's workload. I recommended, It's the Manager by Gallup. He said a previous book he had read by Gallup, First Break All the Rules, was one he had found very helpful, especially two questions, "Do they know what you want?" and "Do they have what they need to do it?" I could see this was very much a part of his leadership style and had helped successfully improve the performance of his people and his section.

Our conversation reminded me of the importance of setting clear expectations. Many times we believe we have been clear. Or we may just believe we shouldn't have to spell things out because "everyone knows" about certain expectations in the workplace. I have had managers tell me they shouldn't have to tell their employees what they expect because, "No one told me. I figured it out."

And we wonder why the performance we get isn't the performance we want.

My husband and I used to play in a dart league when we were younger. You had a scoreboard and you knew exactly what you needed to hit in order to make your target (and it wasn't always the bullseye.) Once you knew what you needed, it was a matter of focus and skill to win.  You could always just throw the dart in the general direction of the board and hope for the best, but in that case, winning was a matter of luck, not focus or skill. And winning wasn't likely. You have much better success when you have a specific spot on the board you're aiming at (a clearly defined target.)

Clear expectations tell people exactly what they have to do to be successful. You may need to demonstrate or to provide examples. One of the managers I coached had a fast food restaurant and was frustrated because his people had "no work ethic." He said he would tell them to "stock the front," but when he checked their work, it wasn't done. The issue wasn't that his employees were lazy, it was that their idea of what he meant by "stock the front" and his idea, were not the same. I told him to stock the front the way he wanted it to look when he gave that instruction and then bring his employees out and show them. Explain the standard for each element of the task. Once this was done, they understood what he wanted and he had much better performance.

Give your people a clear target if you want to win.

Who's Accountable for Accountability?

By Sajib Hossain01
 Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0
 httpscommons.wikimedia.org
windex.phpcurid=74177553

How many times have you or one of your managers said, “Employees just won’t take responsibility. They don’t want to be accountable.” Well, Mr./Ms. Employer, if your employees don’t take responsibility, it’s probably, to a great degree, your fault.

Some employees are sufficiently self-motivated to do what needs to be done, regardless of the circumstances. A few will perform poorly, regardless of what you do, until you let them go. But the vast majority of your employees want to do a good job but need occasional course corrections. The truth is, the performance of most employees will sink to the level the organization will accept. Organizations tend to drag good performers down. Therefore, it is vital to pay attention to the messages we send by our daily actions.

The responsibility for creating an accountability culture belongs to the leaders in the organization. Here are some accountability basics:

•         Set standards and communicate them—clearly and often. Everyone needs to know what’s expected of them.
•          Don’t encourage the “blame game.” To have an accountability culture, you have to have open communication where people can accept responsibility and admit mistakes. If your response to mistakes is "off with his head," you can bet you won't hear about them or if you do, fingers will be pointing at others. You don’t have to accept repeated errors from someone, but we all fall short sometimes.
•          Correct poor performance. People have to be told when their performance falls short of the standard so they can improve, and there need to be consequences when they do not.
•          Reward superior performance. We tend to focus on telling people where they fall short—recognize instead where they excel. There should be a clear tie between rewards and results.
•          Don’t let excellent performance in one area provide carte blanche for an employee to disregard other standards. Too often we allow the best technician/salesperson/etc. to be a jerk or get away with violating our ethics or values in other areas.

As a leader in your organization, you are responsible for setting and enforcing standards—you should be held accountable for accountability in your organization. Accountability starts at the top.

The Feedback Sandwich--No

Photo by Victoria Shes on Unsplash

Yesterday, I was again in a training event where I was told how great the feedback sandwich is. For those who don't know what a feedback sandwich is, it is a method used to address performance issues with employees that ostensibly saves their feelings and helps performance. Basically, you tell the person something they are doing well, then tell them the thing you would like to see them do better, then end with something they are doing well.

Although there are times when the feedback sandwich may be a useful tool, over time I have become convinced it is a tool for a lazy supervisor.

Look at the hotdogs on the left. I am not a hot dog fan. I don't eat them often, but when I do, I load them up with a lot of other ingredients (more than you see here) so I don't taste the hotdog. That's really what happens with a feedback sandwich. The good things surrounding the area for improvement, which is usually why we are having the conversation to start with, cover up the "meat" of the feedback. Consequently, our employee doesn't get the true flavor of the sandwich.

But you say, "The sandwich helps keep a person from feeling bad and ensures they know I see all of the good things they are doing as well as the bad." In truth, if you have a person that has a lot of angst over negative feedback, they will generally ferret out the negative, regardless of how small, and fret over it anyway. Most other people will focus on the first and last and treat the middle as a minor issue if they hear it at all.

We all want our people to perform at an optimum level. We all want our employees to be motivated. And no one likes to be an ogre. So how do we give feedback correctly?

First, we work hard to create feedback culture. Much of the reason people freak out over negative feedback is because they don't get much feedback at all. The feedback we give them isn't done correctly.

I don't want to make this post too long so I will not go into details on how to deliver feedback; I'll just say we need to give a lot more of it, most of it positive. We look at feedback as a negative thing. Instead, as leaders we should look at feedback as a critical leadership tool. A person cannot improve without feedback. Failing to give frequent feedback, both good and bad, is cheating our employees. We are holding them back from reaching their potential.

Regular, honest feedback, good and bad, helps people grow and to perform better. The more feedback people get, the more they look at feedback as part of the work culture and expect it. If feedback is done properly, it doesn't feel like a personal attack, it feels helpful, because it is.

Philosophizing

Photo: NIOSH, Public Domain,
 https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=39802192

This week more than most, I have had time to talk to companies about their philosophy toward employees and the role of HR. So I thought I would take a minute to share the basics of my own.

• Our employees are potentially the single greatest competitive advantage we have. If that isn't true in your workplace, it's on the company's leadership.
• Most employees want to do a good job; many want to do a great job. Only the very rare individual stays up nights thinking of ways to make your life miserable.
• Respect, civility, and fun make any workplace better.
• Employees model their leadership, so choose your models wisely.
• Maximum transparency is best. What employees don't know about the employer's motivations and actions, they make up. What they imagine is never good for the employer.
• Honesty truly is the best policy. But if you make a habit of shooting the messenger, you won't get it.
• HR's job is to help the organization take advantage of the enormous talent of the workforce in order to achieve the organization's goals. Not to be the compliance Nazi or party central. Compliance and fun are important, in small doses. They should comprise a very small slice of HR's time.

HR Metrics Are Meaningless

Photo by William Iven on Unsplash

I came across another article this week on HR metrics. Based on the title, "Which HR Metrics Will Matter in 2019?", I thought, "Great!" But once again, I was severely disappointed.

But first, what is a metric? If you look it up in the dictionary, it will tell you it relates to the metric system of measurement. However, as used in business, a metric translates data into some chart or graph that helps with decisionmaking. What were the Big 3 metrics cited in the article? Labor turnover (voluntary resignations), Absence rate, and Number of employees per HR staff member. ARRGGH!! The other measures mentioned in the article as useful are also not where we should be focusing our attention (although there are some good reasons to look at them on occasion.)

Most of the metrics I see in HR departments are busyness metrics--how much of something was done. Other metrics are efficiency metrics--how fast or how cheaply is a process done. I am not saying there is not some value in those, but the value is limited, and truly, the only people who should care are the people in HR. We should be concerned with reducing workload and being efficient with our resources. But from a company leadership viewpoint, I want to know impact. If the results aren't there, then I don't care how efficient the process is. If the results aren't there, I don't care how busy you are.

The problem with HR metrics is that it is very difficult to measure the impact of HR processes and generally, HR policies and practices do not operate in a vacuum, so it is tricky to try to isolate the impact of specific HR programs.

Fundamentally, HR is there to help the workforce be more productive and to leverage the talents of the people in the organization to help the organization achieve its objectives. Wouldn't you agree?

I can see a reason to track turnover. But the value in turnover is not the overall number. Personally, I like to see both voluntary and involuntary turnover. Voluntary turnover can indicate cultural, management, and compensation issues. But more importantly, who is leaving? Critical skill turnover is more important to me than turnover as a whole. When are people leaving? If shortly after hire, we need to look at our hiring and onboarding processes. Is there some other timeframe that seems to have a higher percentage of people leaving? Why? Involuntary turnover in good economic times can indicate poor hiring practices.

But I don't really care about the other two measures cited in the article. What might I look at instead? Every organization is different so I would expect the measures to be different. However, two that should be considered are Revenue Per Employee (this varies hugely by industry) and Employee Engagement. I look at revenue versus profit because although employees have a big impact on the revenue brought into the company, management determines how much of that revenue turns into profit. I would track employee engagement because study after study has shown higher engagement means higher returns.

There are other possibilities, but they should be based upon each business's unique niche and business objectives.

Why Do We Have to Make Things Hard?

Photo by rawpixel on Unsplash

It seems HR, like many professions, has to make relatively straightforward concepts as difficult as possible to prove we're professionals.

In my mind, it's our job to make things as simple as possible. People are complicated enough without us HR pros making things worse.

I'm not talking about all of the compliance things that our lawmakers and regulators have worked hard to make as convoluted and nit-picky as possible, I'm talking about the people part. The true important piece we are responsible for.

What got me going today is the whole generations discussion. I really think this is one of those areas that got blown out of proportion to justify some HR professor's research budget and the income of many, many consultants. (Okay, that was a little sarcastic...)

Photo by Katia Rolon on Unsplash

I am not saying people who grew up in different times with different political, social, and economic realities don't think differently. They do. Just as people who are the same age in the same community think differently, depending upon their circumstances (race, religion, culture, socioeconomic status, etc.). Over time, most get pushed into the same workplace mold the rest of us got stuffed into. If there is one thing I would like to change about the workplace, that would be it. We do not need a worker cookie cutter, making sure we are all as nearly as possible like the person next to us. In fact, that is a very bad thing.

I am from the "sex, drugs, rock and roll!" generation. Can you even recognize a hippie in the stick-in-the-mud self-righteous people we see around us in the workplace talking about the lack of work ethic in our young people today? Seems I recall hearing those same words from my parents back in the day.

Does that mean I haven't done training on generational differences in the workplace? No, because I have. And I think there is some value in it, just as I think there is value in bringing all types of differences to the attention of our workers and managers, whether that difference, is sex, race, religion, disability, gender orientation, or any other difference between people. I hope there is a greater appreciation and understanding of one another as a result so we can work together more effectively.

But at the end of the day, we are all people. We all want respect. We all want to feel valued. We need to be listened to. We want to know what our bosses expect of us. We want to know how they'll evaluate our performance. We want to learn. We want to feel like the work we did for the last 8 hours was important. That's the bottom line. One size does not fit all, even with those of us who are most alike.

We're different. Good. There's nothing wrong with wanting something different than the person next to you. Celebrate those differences and the value those differences bring to the workplace in terms of creativity, innovation, and yes, fun. But let's not spend our time making those differences a cause for creating another us vs. them division. Let's get rid of the cookie cutters. After all, we're not gingerbread men.

Photo by Pietro De Grandi on Unsplash

Mediocrity vs. High Performance

I came across the title of an article today that was contrary to what I seem to teach in my leadership courses, 'Collaboration' Creates Mediocrity, Not Excellence, Says Science. So of course, I had to read it.

Photo by rawpixel.com on Unsplash

As it turns out, the article isn't disagreeing with what I am telling people, but it focuses on the negative aspects of team collaboration instead of providing a solution.

The average team isn't very effective. According to Dr. Eunice Parisi-Cerew, 60% of teams fail to accomplish their objectives. If Johnny brought home a report card with this sort of grade, we would be very unhappy, and we'd be sitting on him until results improved. In the workplace, we tend to tolerate mediocrity. That's what I see as the most important underlying theme of the article, and it is barely mentioned at all.

We do tend to allow people to get by in the workplace. If they are doing satisfactory work, we allow it. Instead of merely looking for the trappings of team collaboration, we should be shooting for high performance results. Yes, in many of the average teams, high performers tend to carry others. Eventually, the person doing the carrying is going to get mad and go somewhere else--and the effort collapses.

Collaboration is merely working together to produce or create something--there is nothing in the definition that indicates the quality or value of what is created. When we focus merely on collaboration, we are focusing on form over substance. Instead of collaboration being the end result, collaboration should be a tool to achieve the result.

High performance teams are different. They focus on results--not just mediocre results, but outstanding results. They hold one another accountable. They are not afraid to communicate expectations and to push one another.

I am not a believer in having all A players on a team. They bring their own problems. But I am a big believer in developing balanced teams of high potential players--may be they're B's now, but they are willing to work hard and work together toward outstanding results. I have seen a group of B players achieve better results than one with multiple A players because they were focused on a team win, not a personal best.

Creating and nurturing high performance teams is hard work. It isn't luck. And it begins with a focus on high performance standards, not merely collaboration.

Don't Ask The Question If You Don't Want to Deal With the Answer

I'm a consultant. Business owners come to me for advice. They don't always like the answer I give them. But it's their company--they don't have to use that advice. And that's OK. I reserve the right to do the same in my own company.

This happens to me when doing audits as well. When a company asks me to do any type of an audit, I always ask, are you sure you want to know? Because if you know something is not right, you have an obligation to fix it. If you are going to ignore what you find, then don't audit. You can at least plead ignorance. But once you know, it's hard to convince a government agency you were operating in good faith.

I was meeting with a group of people today to discuss employee engagement surveys. One of the people asked, "So, what if a company does the survey, and they fail?" Well, first, taking a survey and getting a poor result is not failure....if you use the information you get to make improvements. Companies only fail if they ignore the answers they get.

It's the same with employee satisfaction or engagement surveys. If you ask employees for their feedback, you can't ignore it. If you do, the employees figure you were just pretending to care what they think and the result is a further decrease in satisfaction and/or engagement. When you take these surveys, there are going to be negative responses. It's a given. No one and no company is perfect. However, you do need to go back to the employees and say, "Okay, here's what you liked and what you didn't. These are the specific issues we are going to tackle in the near term because they seemed to be the biggest concerns." Then get them involved in fixing the problems and keep them apprised of what is happening. Just the knowledge that the company listened and is trying to improve has a significant positive impact on employee motivation.

It's a waste of your time and your employees' time to ask them to complete a survey and then ignore what they tell you. If you don't want to know and don't want to take action, just don't ask in the first place.

The purpose of an audit or an employee survey is to make your company better. Properly used, these tools can not only improve compliance and engagement, but they can help you get better results in terms of profit--a win/win in my book.

Winning the War for Profit

Warning! This post contains shameless self-promotion, as well as a modicum of useful information.

In an earlier post, I talked about leadership training as often pursued by companies, versus leadership training that actually works.

I recently released a short eBook (paperback to follow in a few months), Winning the War for Profit: Developing Leaders Where It Really Matters, that contains a roadmap to leadership development at the first-line supervisor level, as that is the place where (in my opinion) it can do an organization the most good.

Here's a short excerpt from the book that highlights why I think this is such an important topic:

"Here are just a few other reasons to focus on your supervisors:

• The right managers contribute 48% more profit than average managers (Frontline Managers, 2014)
• Managers account for at least 70% of the variance in employee engagement scores across business units. (Beck, 2014)
• Businesses say that manager and supervisor involvement was "extremely important" or "very important" to the success of their change efforts (Manager/Supervisor's Role in Change Management, 2016)
• Total Return to Shareholders (TRS) over a 3-year period is 286% higher for those companies with a high level of employee trust versus those with a low level of trust, according to Watson Wyatt.
• Ninety-one percent of employees rated their relationship with their immediate supervisor as "very important" or "important" to their job satisfaction. (SHRM, 2016)

"If you are still stuck on the first bullet, you should be. That statement, by itself, should justify every penny of investment you make in your supervisors." 

Winning the War for Profit shows businesses how to select, train and support first-line supervisors. The information is transferable to leadership development at all levels of the organization, but there are some unique aspects to that first leadership rung, so I wanted to focus on that.

The next book, Leadership in the Trenches: Developing Your First-line Leadership Ability, will be focused on the specific skills required by first-line leaders and will be useful for organizations to use in their training programs or for first line supervisors to use independently. Look for that book around 1 October.

You can find Winning the War for Profit on Amazon.

Trust and Face-Time

I was speaking at an HR conference last week on the subject of managing change. In that talk, I talked about the importance of trust in getting employees to adopt change.

In the Q&A at the end of the session, one of the attendees asked, "How can one get employees in remote locations without regular interaction with management to trust the management team?" My response? "Facetime."

I know we have gotten into the whole virtual workplace theme. I interact with my clients mostly in a virtual environment. But I have met all of them, in person, usually more than once.

We've probably all heard the sales maxim that people buy from people they trust. In order to trust them, they have to like them, and to like them, they have to know them. The same is very true with employees and trust. If employees don't see management, they cannot develop trust in management, and if they don't trust management, they are unlikely to buy into the change.

This is one of the big reasons first line supervisors are so important--they are the accessible face of management. But let's not get me on that soapbox this morning. The old "Management by Walking Around" rule applies in today's workplace every bit as much as it used to. Perhaps even more, as workers are seeing their management less and less all the time.

Yes, your job is busy. At a point not too long in my past, I took over a work group of about 350 people that were spread out in several buildings. The tendency is to stay in the building where your office is located. I made it a point to visit every workcenter on a regular basis and to talk to every single person there when I went by. And to make sure I did it, I appointed someone to hold me accountable.

The visits weren't long. Initially, the employees were completely thrown off by management in their area. It was obvious that it was not something they were used to and when it happened, it wasn't a good thing. It took several weeks for them to relax and some months before they would actually bring up and discuss problems and make suggestions. They had a chance to ask "why" about policies and procedures from the person who made/approved them. I don't think it is enough just to glad-hand your employees (except maybe the first time.) Be interested; ask questions; recognize good work.

This simple, but regular, action was part of the reason this group gelled so well and actively pursued better ways of doing the work. In the case of the person in my conference session, to visit her group required overnight travel. So you don't see them every week, but you have to make it a point to see them occasionally. In between, yes, other forms of contact help reinforce the relationship.

My point? Get off your butt and walk around. Even if it's a long walk.

Retaining and Propagating Knowledge

Have you noticed it is a never-ending battle to keep yourself proficient? Things are changing every day. You are never done learning. And neither are your employees. No one can be expert in everything you do.

Personally, I hate everything to do with accounting. I don't want to learn it in any detail. I want to know enough to understand the financial statements--I am perfectly happy to leave the details to someone else. I hire someone to do the bookkeeping who will make sure we have the records we need and know where the money comes from, where it's going and what's our current status. It keeps me sane. I use that information to make decisions, but I don't want the time suck of trying to keep up on this myself.

But therein is our dilemma. Not only do people need to stay current in their knowledge, but the organization needs to find a way to use, keep and expand upon that knowledge. People quit for other jobs. Others retire. They take a lot of knowledge with them.

How do we retain knowledge in our organization? How do we spread that knowledge around the organization, so we learn faster and aren't floundering when something happens? I talked about some of the mechanical ways in my last post, Let's Talk Systems. But there are other, more interactive ways to learn and share knowledge quickly.

I'll use myself as an example. I decided to write a book. It comes out in just a few days. (Dancing!) I have been meaning to write the book for a couple of years, but trying to learn all of the steps in getting published on my own just frustrated the heck out of me. I talked to the couple of people who I knew had written a book, but I just couldn't get the steps down in my mind. Finally, I signed up for a class and joined an on-line Facebook group. The class led me step-by-step (mostly) through a process and the on-line group provided a way to get my questions answered and provided encouragement along the way. Voila! Slightly more than 60 days later, I'm a published author.

Other than bragging on my accomplishment, what's the point? My point is organizations only stay on top by constantly learning--which means the people learn. But since people can come and go, we need to be sure to capture their knowledge in some way and share it with others to ensure the entire organization can capitalize on that knowledge. This again points to the need for planning and using a systematic process. At the same time, people engage more with the learning and can learn faster when they interact with others more knowledgeable and those also learning. Shared questions, experiences, and knowledge help to reinforce concepts and enable the learner to apply the knowledge more quickly.  In addition to faster and arguably, better, learning, this type of learning helps keep your experts engaged and helps everyone feel more a part of the team. A real win-win in terms of retention.

I suggest you try to find ways to incorporate social media tools into the learning plans in your organization.

Let's Talk Systems

I am a big proponent for setting up systems. For many reasons.

HR is an interruption-rich environment. If you have never worked in HR, it can be a madhouse. I find that if I don't have some way to keep track of what needs to be done and where I am in the process, things get forgotten. Just because I was thinking of doing a task or partially done with a task when I am interrupted, my brain translates that to "Done!"

Often, multiple hands touch an action for different purposes. If you're a one-person HR department and do all of the HR and payroll yourself, maybe not so much. But for many of us, different people do different things. Take for example a new hire. Someone has to report the person as starting to work. Someone has to ensure the I-9 gets done. Someone needs to ensure the new person is properly set up in the HRIS (and possibly payroll, if the system is not the same.) Someone has to ensure they are scheduled for all of their orientation/new hire training. Someone has to set up their personnel file. Someone has to take care of sending out the benefits paperwork,....and so on. You get the point. How do you track whether everyone with an action to take has indeed gotten the information they need and completed their tasks?

People leave. Employees leave. They quit, you fire them, they die. Sounds a little hard-nosed., but face it--people leave. All of these have happened in my department. Sometimes with little or no notice. Does anyone know how to do their job? Can anyone pick up and at least fumble through the actions that need to be done?

We forget. Some actions in HR need to be done only once a year. Do you remember to do them? Can you remember how? Do you know where to get the information you need?

For these reasons and more, you need to set up systems. That means you have to sit down the think out all of the steps you take, who does what, when they need to be done, etc. There is nothing wrong with manual systems. I used them for years and they work fine. I have to admit though, I like to automate as much as possible. Automated systems can be easier to share as well.

So what are some of the systems we need?
- Continuity "binders." You may not use binders anymore--electronic files work. The idea is to  have everything you need in one place so that if someone comes into the job knowing nothing, they can fumble through. I learned this one in the military. People turn over all the time, so this is a great way to ensure continuity when there is no time for training. These should contain a process flowchart and/or checklist, who to call, links to references, where to find the documents, forms and manuals needed, and an FAQ.
- Checklists. Yes, I mentioned them in the last paragraph. If you don't feel like you need something as complete as a continuity binder, at least make a checklist. It might be my little military mind, but checklists are our friends. But only if we use them. Did you do this? Who did it? When? It's all right there.
- Task lists. I mean a list of every important task in your department. That way, you can easily see if you have people who are lined up to do all of them and that you have continuity documents for all of them. This will also allow you to set up a task reminder system.
- Task reminder system. If you don't do a task every day, it's a good idea to have a reminder set up, with an early reminder to start gathering information in advance. The year goes by with the speed of light and annual tasks come up before you know it. Time for the annual handbook review. Check. Time to send out the Medicate Part D Notices. Check. Gee, has it already been 15 days for that FMLA certification? What's going on with that?
- Cross training. Look at that master task list. Does every task have a primary and an alternate person assigned? If it's a critical task, maybe even a back up for the back up. I'm just saying...stuff happens. The primary of course, is the person who does the job every day. The backup should at least have been trained on the task and can do it, with the assistance of the continuity book.
- Quality Control. Even if you have a process, you need a way to check it. I had one person who would be the last person to receive the checklists back on a new hire. Her job was to review the checklist to be sure every single task was signed off and to do a spot check to be sure. She also went hunting for checklists if they weren't returned to her in a couple of days of hire. None of these tools do a thing for you, if they aren't used.

If you will take the time to set up (and keep current) systematic processes in HR (and the rest of your company), your work life will be so much easier and you'll be in better shape on compliance.