Monthly Archives: February 2010

The Chain of Command: Power vs. Intelligence

22 Monday Feb 2010

Posted by in Management Practices

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, ,

“We have a chain of command that you need to follow.”*
*(a similar/related statement is “Why are you involved in this issue?”)

If this, or any statement like this is uttered in an organization, warning bells should be ringing. This statement indicates several things about the person who is making the statement:

  • He/she feels threatened
  • He/she has an “Us versus Them” mentality, ‘Us’ being the all powerful, and ‘them’ being you, the speck of dust
  • He/she wants to silence alternate ideas and creative thought by “Them”
  • He/she is or feels they are in a position of power and authority over everyone else
  • He/she is creating conflict, not resolving conflict

None of the above are good for the organization, and yet few people in the business world can deny that they have said or had someone say something similar to them.

A ‘Chain of Command’ is a military strategy that assumes people will be sacrificed for the greater good. A chain of command is designed to isolate power in the hands of a very few people who may have to order others to take action that they may not want to take in order to preserve a way of life for their country. Despite the chain of command structure in the military the fact is that in any given battle at least half the General’s plans will fail, and often the plans of the General’s on both sides will fail and the winner of the battle is the army that screwed up least. Time after time it is often the person who was not privy to the chain of command, who ignored the incompetent and/or uninformed orders of those in power, and saved the day despite the chain of command.

Organizations, whether they be for profit or not for profit, must be based on the concept that everyone is important and everyone’s ideas should be considered. The idea that some will be sacrificed (ignored, shown disrespect, demoralized, etc.) for the greater good creates a flaw in the organization that will at best constantly hold the organization back, and at worst be the wound that causes the organization to hemorrhage to death. The reality is that most organizations instinctively

“…most organizations instinctively know this and routinely bypass the chain of command.”

know this and routinely bypass the chain of command. It is only when a weak manager or executive feels threatened that they assert their power and invoke the organizational chart.

Organization charts are great….on paper, but rarely do they adequately function in the real world. The idea that any problem or opportunity needs to flow through a predetermined chain of command assumes that communication within the organization has been directed to the correct people AND that the correct people have retained and assimilated all the required information to make informed decisions. In practice this is rarely true and the result is costly errors in judgement or failure of action by the chain of command. The result is frustration and dissatisfaction that ripple across the organization.

The fatal flaw of the concept of a chain of command is the futility of ‘control’ of an employee. For decades many business schools have preached the need for management to establish controls that set expectations, measured, motivated, and evaluated employees.   The problem is that any method of control inherently creates a degree of dependence on management, and somewhat ironically, often reduces confidence in management. A ‘well-managed’ employee is often (knowingly or unknowingly) discouraged by the controlling manager of exercising creative thought. That causes obstruction to an organization’s ability to react and respond in its environment, which ultimately can be fatal. In addition, efforts to control an employee is demeaning and demoralizing, which ultimately leads to disloyalty, dissatisfaction, and turnover. Management through control is subject to what I call the Uncertainty Principle of Management.

The Kiser Uncertainty Principle of Management states:
The more a manager applies controls to, or attempts to manage an employee the less loyalty** that employee will have to the manager and/or organization.

**(Definition of Loyalty: anonymous dedication and support to a manager, an organization, and goals of both.)

The idea that loyalty is, 1) a dependent factor on management control, and 2) has a negative relationship to management control would seem to be a leap in logic, but in over 30 years of observing, studying, and practicing management I have never seen an exception to this principle. Disloyalty may manifest itself in turnover or even employee theft, OR may be as simple as not considering the best interest of the company while performing his or her job functions. Hidden camera videos of bad employee behavior are often in companies with the tightest management controls.

So is the solution an organization based in anarchy that operates in chaos? Almost.

The first step is to Re-Imagine the role of the manager or executive as a consultant, not a boss. A consultant advises her or his clients, but knows that it will be up to the client to follow or reject the advice.  For a controlling-type manager who believes they are responsible for the success or failure of those in her or his charge, that may be interpreted as surrendering all authority over the employee, but the reality is that by empowering the employee and assuming a consulting role, the manager is giving the best possible opportunity for the employee to succeed. In addition, it frees the manager to evaluate the employee, not on how well they follow orders, but rather on achieved results.

The second step is to design an organization to be responsive. This doesn’t mean the organizational chart should be abolished, but that its role is significantly different. The organizational chart should be a guideline to help people access and channel information and improve decision-making, but never should it be restrictive. The idea of a chain of command is based in power and authority and it serves a few people in positions of authority, but is disrespectful and demoralizing to everyone else in the organization.

Dissatisfiers: Why John Quit

21 Sunday Feb 2010

Posted by in Club Leadership, Communication, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Employee Retention, Human Resources, Lessons of Life, Management Practices, Membership Retention, Public Relations, Relationships, Rotary, Rotary@105, Social Media Relations, The Tipping Point

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by Paul Kiser
USA PDT [Twitter: ] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] Skype: kiserrotary or 775.624.5679]

Paul Kiser

Why Did John Quit?
In my years in management, human resources, and service club involvement I have watched many people leave organizations and periodically someone in the organization starts throwing around the ‘R’ word: Retention. What follows are committee meetings, calls for surveys, and finger-pointing. The search usually turns up discovery of a plausible single cause for the problem based upon limited evidence, followed by a shrug of shoulders because the alledged cause is almost always determined to be a reason that is out of control of the organization.

Finding the real reason for attrition for any organization is elusive because there is almost never just one reason for someone to quit. The decision to quit is typically after the person has accumulated multiple ‘dissatisfiers‘ or negative experiences that finally caused the person to make a change by leaving. Dissatisfiers can be issues about pay, benefits, or other tangible reasons; however, most negative experiences are intangible acts that weaken (or fail to strengthen) a person’s perception of belonging to the organization.

A Dissatisfier may be something small, like a person not getting thanked for his or her contribution to a special project, or something more significant, like a lack of a desired promotion. As each Dissatisfier is added the person gets closer to the decision that the organization is not meeting his or her needs.

While a group or organization may be unaware of their actions that cause a Dissatisfier for an individual, people often consciously use Dissatisfiers to drive away a member or employee from a group because it is a subtle form of discrimination that is difficult to detect and easy to blame the victim as being overly sensitive. We learn this tactic at a young age and often as a byproduct of sibling rivalry when one child torments another by subtlety annoying them until they react violently. In adults, the behavior is rarely as overt, nor does it result in violence, but can be very effective in weeding out diversity in the group.

When the Dissatisfiers are not the result of a conscious effort against a person, but rather the failure to include the person, the result can be the same. Over time the person may ultimately decide to quit for a better opportunity, or, in the case of a volunteer organization, leave for no other opportunity.

The Perfect Environment to Study Dissatisfiers
Volunteer organizations are an ideal environment to study the effect of Dissatisfiers because the issue of compensation and/or benefits (tangible rewards) can be ruled out as factors for attrition. While some may conclude that because there is no tangible rewards for a volunteer, his or her involvement is tenuous all the time; however, often an individual has a deeper commitment to a volunteer organization simply because they are involved for more meaningful reasons. That reason may be as simple as wanting to be a part of an organization that seeks to do good, but for many people who need is often more powerful than monetary gain.

Members of a volunteer organization should feel that the work they perform not only gives them a sense of accomplishment; but also gives them a sense  of worth, belonging (or friendship) and pride. For a member to leave that organization means that the group failed to provide or connect the member to the key rewards of volunteer service. Attrition in a volunteer organization is often blamed on a single external factor (a bad economy) or the person (not in the organization for the right reasons) rather than examine the Dissatisfiers that they might have been able to address that would have retained that member.

To improve retention organizations need to stop looking for the single factor for attrition, and start looking for the list of Dissatisfiers that led to the decision to quit. In volunteer organizations, a member’s involvement is to fill a need of belonging and attrition can only be attributed to internal Dissatisfiers, not external factors.

More Articles

Global Warming According to the Village Idiot

21 Sunday Feb 2010

Posted by in Science

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

I always cringe when I read or hear someone remark, “I just cleared six inches of Global Warming off my driveway.”   It sounds clever, but I when I read or hear this from someone I find myself hoping that the person is trying to make a joke about themselves, and not that the person is trying to make some political statement that they have proof that contradicts real science.  Suffice to say that even the most unsophisticated person should know that an observation at any one location is not a valid measure of global change; however, there is more to this issue.

First, the term Global ‘Warming’ is a poor description of what would better be referred to as Global Energy Retention.   What most people know about the Sun is that it is bright and hot and therefore anything to do with the sun is a light or a ‘heat’ issue.   The fact is that the Sun’s output is energy, and light and heat are merely the forms of energy that we can see and feel.   The major player in ‘Global Warming’ is infrared energy, which is a type of energy we can’t see but that we can feel as warmth.   The problem is that carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere causes some infrared energy to bounce back to the Earth and the amount of CO2 has dramatically risen in the past 100 years.    Because infrared energy is associated with ‘heat’ it would seem to make one believe that this is an issue only about higher temperatures, but it is not.

We don’t ‘feel’ visible light; however, visible light can turn into infrared energy by hitting a dark colored surface.   The ‘heat’ we feel off of asphalt is visible light energy that has been converted into infrared energy.    This is an important distinction because while we associate infrared with ‘heat’, other types of energy can be converted into infrared energy AND infrared energy can be converted into non-heat energy.   For example, the energy that is absorbed in the ocean can evaporate water that can create clouds.  Likewise, the energy absorbed by the oceans and the land can cause air to heat and begin moving causing wind.   In both situations infrared energy becomes the energy that is converted from ‘heat’ to another kind of energy.   This is why it’s so important to understand that Global Warming is not just about ‘heat’ but it is about the Earth retaining more energy.

It is likely that the reason that Global Warming was coined as the term to describe the retention of more solar energy was to help non-scientists and politicians to better understand the effect.   The problem with the term is that it creates the impression that with every new day, month, season, and year we should be observing higher temperatures than we remember from the previous year.   But because energy can be converted, the retention of more infrared energy does not necessarily mean higher temperatures as some of the excess infrared will be converted into wind and storms.

So where is all this extra energy now? It seems much of the extra energy is being transported (by the oceans and air over the oceans) to where Earth is coldest, the poles.   We are seeing a major change in the Antarctic ice shield which makes sense as the Southern Hemisphere is predominantly oceans.   We are also seeing more hurricanes and major storms (including snow storms) that indicate ‘Global Warming’ is powering up the weather dynamics across the Earth.   The point is that ‘Warming’ is a misnomer when we discuss the impact of Earth’s Energy Retention because the end product is not always ‘heat’.

However, even if there were no issue on energy retention, the idea that a person can judge global weather patterns from what the amount of snow on their driveway is pathetic.   It is akin to standing in the kitchen with the refrigerator door open and saying the house is cold.   There is no doubt that 1) we have more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than we have had in millions of years, and a dramatic increase in the last 100 years, and 2) more carbon dioxide means more absorption of infrared energy.   The situation is real and while the long term impact of Earth’s energy retention cannot be fully understood it never will be a political or a laughing matter.

Rotary and Club Public Relations

19 Friday Feb 2010

Posted by in Public Relations, Rotary

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , ,

Eight Rotary Policies that Shape Club Public Relations

In the past year I have discovered two important facts of Rotary Public Relations.  The first fact is that all Public Relations is local.  Simply put, Rotary’s public image will always be determined by the actions of the club and member, and not by billboards and radio spots.  That is a two-edged sword, because the acts of individual members can either make Rotary look great, or not so great.  The second fact is that Public Relations is a function of Membership.  For Public Relations to be a success it should benefit membership retention and recruitment.  If Public Relations does not assist the efforts of Membership it is failing to meet its primary objective.

Recently I reviewed Rotary’s Manuel of Procedure and the Rotary Code of Policies to research a Public Relations question and was reminded that many of our policies reinforce and guide clubs to improve membership goals and address Public Relations at the local (club and member) level.  Here are eight Rotary policies that can help clubs focus on membership and improve club Public Relations:

1.  Policy on including the Family in Rotary – Manual of Procedure page 14

“All Rotary clubs and Rotarians should take into account the spouses and families of Rotary club members when planning activities.”

2.  Policy on including Recruiting Young Professionals – Manual of Procedure page 12

“Clubs should remember the importance of seeking out younger persons…who are qualified for membership. Clubs should find methods of increasing the appeal of membership to the growing number of young men and women who are occupying positions of responsibility in businesses and professions.”

3.  Policy on including Invocations – Manual of Procedure page 16

“Rotary clubs throughout the world include members who have many religious beliefs and values and are united in service to humanity. Each Rotary club…conducting its meetings in a manner that reflects Rotary’s basic principle of tolerance….”

4.  Policy on Membership Growth – Manual of Procedure page 19

“…It is inappropriate and inconsistent with the principles of Rotary for any club to establish arbitrary limits on the number of members in the club or to fail to increase its membership…”

5.  Policy on Individual PR Responsibility – Manual of Procedure page 21

“Rotarians are urged to help their clubs become more identifiable in their communities by personally informing others about what Rotary is and does, in order to improve and expand Rotary growth and service.”

6.  Policy Prohibiting Partisan Politics – Manual of Procedure page 24

“…clubs must refrain from issuing partisan political statements.  Rotarians are prohibited from adopting statements with a view to exerting any corporate pressure on governments or political authorities…”

7.  Policy on Diversification of Membership – Manual of Procedure page 20

“A club’s membership should fully reflect the community it serves.”

8.  Policy Prohibiting Offensive Jokes – Code of Policies 7.020.1

“No story, stunt, joke or entertainment is proper or fit to be placed before any Rotarian or any gathering of Rotarians which would not be perfectly proper and fit to place before such Rotarians if each one were accompanied by one’s parents, spouse or children. No story or joke is fit to be told or repeated by any individual Rotarian unless such joke or story might properly be repeated before such Rotarian’s family.”

It is important that we keep aware that public image is not what Rotarians think about Rotary, but what non-Rotarians think about Rotary.  People who visit the club meeting and observe actions that violate Rotary policies will judge all members by the act of one member; therefore, it is critical that all members fully understand Rotary policies and address situations that negatively impact the Club’s public image.

By Paul Kiser
District Public Relations Chair
Rotary District 5190 NE California/No. Nevada
pakiser@sbcglobal.net

Is monitoring your employee’s Facebook page a liability?

15 Monday Feb 2010

Posted by in Management Practices

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

by Paul Kiser

Paul Kiser - CEO of 2020 Enterprise Technologies, inc.

A recent study indicated that 70% of employers surveyed said that they use an applicant’s personal social networking page as a factor in deciding whether to hire or not.  It is no secret that many employers check out their employee’s social networking sites and in some cases base employment decisions on what they find out about their workers, but is the employer increasing their liability by this practice?  A manager or human resource person who goes to a social networking site and looks up an applicant’s (or an employee’s) webpage may believe they are acting in the best interest of the company; however, researching someone’s private life may result in expanding the company’s Duty to Care responsibilities, which could open a new door of accountability if the employee commits a criminal or civil offense that might have been indicated beforehand on his or her social networking page.

Duty to Care versus Big Brother
Every employer has an obligation to abide by the doctrine of ‘Duty to Care’.  While each State has its own standards to define an employer’s Duty to Care, in general terms, it is the responsibility of the employer to make a reasonable attempt to ensure that an employee would not cause harm or injury, and if an employee does cause harm or injury that the employer could not have reasonably foreseen the employee’s potential to act in such a manner.  Some may think that this is limited to an employee’s actions on the job; however, under certain conditions, the employer may be liable for harm or injury caused by acts performed while off-duty.  Because of the Duty to Care responsibility many employers perform criminal background checks, credit checks, and drug testing on their employees to insure that they have made a reasonable effort to maintain a safe environment for their customers, employees, and the general public.  Monitoring an employee’s Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, or other social networking page might seem a natural extension of the Duty to Care obligation, but is it a good policy or does it expand the Duty to Care to an unlimited monitoring and assessment of an employee’s potential to cause harm?

A Fictional Example
An employer (Better Widgits, Inc.) checks an applicant’s (Mark’s) current Facebook page and sees nothing unusual and based on the qualifications of the applicant and seeing nothing negative in the criminal background checks, Mark is hired.  Eight months after being hired Mark is fired for poor work performance.  Two months later Mark returns to Better Widgits, Inc. and shoots two people.  Attorney’s for the victims discover that six month’s prior to his employment Mark had written about his admiration of a murderer who went back to his former employer and killed three people.  If the attorney’s for the victims know that Better Widgits, Inc. had a practice of checking an applicant’s Facebook page, isn’t it plausible that they will try to build a case that the employer should have reasonably known that Mark had the potential to be violent based upon his Facebook writings?

In the above example the attorneys may still attempt to make the same case even if the company forbid managers and human resource staff to review applicant and/or employee personal social networking sites.  The difference is that the question of ‘reasonable’ knowledge may be limited if an employer takes the stance that they cannot be held responsible for potential acts of violence based solely on the person’s writings on a social networking page when the employer has no legal responsibility for such an intrusive examination of an applicant’s/employee’s personal life.  However, by voluntarily researching Mark’s Facebook page they may be obligating the company to take action on what they find, or in this case, should have found even if it occurred six months prior to Mark’s hiring.

O Brave New World of Employment
We are still in the early phase of understanding the legal ramifications of how social networking sites will impact employment law and it may be years before standards can be developed that will define the best practices; however, each employer should understand the potential liability of monitoring personal social networking sites.  There is risk even with a decision to not monitor the personal Internet writings of an applicant or employee.  Case studies have shown that a violent act in the workplace is often foretold in the writings of person days, weeks, months, and even years before he or she commits a criminal act, so it will be no surprise if individual States eventually enact legislation to require employer’s to research an employee’s private life, including social networking sites.  However, until it is required by law an employer should consider a policy that defines and limits the company’s responsibilities for researching an applicant’s or employee’s background.  It is suggested that an employer seek the advice of their attorney before they begin monitoring applicant or employee personal social networking sites and understand the potential legal responsibility social network monitoring may create for the organization.

More blogs

NOTE:  Paul Kiser is not an attorney and this blog should not be considered to be legal advice.  An attorney should be consulted for all legal issues and opinions regarding proper employment practices and policies.  Paul has over 10 years of Human Resource related experience in HR and management and a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration.