Category Archives: Human Resources

Management by Coup 2: Eliminate Job Standards and Job Descriptions

24 Wednesday Mar 2010

Posted by in Human Resources, Management Practices, Passionate People, Public Relations, Random, Re-Imagine!, Rotary, Tom Peters

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

Being the Boss is more than wearing a suit and looking important

by Paul Kiser

It seems like a very rational idea. Create job (or performance) standards for every employee that dictate their responsibilities and define the expectations (or for performance standards, defines  ‘does not meet’, ‘meets’, or ‘exceeds’) for all aspects of every job.   That is the only way an employee knows what is expected of them and the only way a manager can “objectively” measure performance.

Very rational…very, very rational….

News Flash: We don’t live in a rational, sterile world where we can put down on a piece of paper an adequate description of intangible concepts like:

  • Taking care of the customer.
  • Thinking outside of the box.
  • Anticipating unforseen problems

Paul Kiser - CEO - 2020 Enterprise Technologies, inc.

I used to think that I could write objective performance standards that covered the intangibles of the business world, but it is really like the Schrödinger’s Cat paradox.  The more objective a set of performance standards, the more impossible it is to accurately and appropriately measure.  Likewise, the more subjective the performance standards, the less accurate the measurement tools and the more a manager’s personality, mood, bias, etc. will influence an employee’s score.

In my first Management by Coup blog I proposed that employee evaluations could and should be eliminated.  Now I want to go further and propose that performance standards are also unnecessary….But wait there’s more.

I propose that companies can also eliminate job descriptions as well.

Someone is saying “You CAN’T do that!!  Job Descriptions are required by LAW, you idiot!!!”  To that I say, BS.  There is no Federal mandate for an employer to have a job description.

There are some caveats to this statement:

  • In certain situations (government contracts, state government positions, etc.)  job descriptions are required.
  • Job descriptions are also often subpoenaed as evidence in an employee relations case.
  • If you have job skills, educational requirements, licensing, etc., then that needs to be listed in some type of job description.

However, all the other things in a job description (job duties, reporting to, etc.) are all optional. So maybe you can’t realistically eliminate a job description, but you can slice it down to the bare bones, and I recommend doing so.  Why?

First, anything a company puts in a job description can and will be held against them.  Like employee evaluations, the job description is often more useful to the employee’s lawyer than it is to the employee or the employer.

Second, like performance standards, job descriptions can’t possibly describe everything an employee does 2080 hours a year.  For this reason almost every job descriptions has the phrase, “Other duties as assigned,” in it.  So why not have a one line job description: “Other duties as assigned” and skip the hours wasted on writing and re-writing job duties?

Third, management is about talking to your staff.  When a piece of paper is more critical to your company than talking to the employee on a regular and frequent basis, then that is the moment to close up the business and let your competitors take over the market.

Here’s a test.  Write a job description for the expectations you have of your child (if you don’t have a child, try a pet, or your significant other).  Then at the end of a week measure how well the job description improved your relationship and if the job description had any value over just not writing it up in the first place.

I rest my case.

Other Blogs

Fear of Public Relations

21 Sunday Mar 2010

Posted by in Crisis Management, Human Resources, Information Technology, Lessons of Life, Management Practices, Passionate People, Public Relations, Re-Imagine!, Rotary, Social Interactive Media (SIM), Tom Peters

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , ,

The fog of Social Interactive Media is burning off

There are two approaches to Public Relations. The first is to live in fear of it and tremble at the prospect of screwing up. Take only measured steps that are carefully calculated and planned.

The other approach is to dive in. Risk mistakes and live and breathe being real and human.

The old school of Public Relations is the former. It is controlled by the Chain of Command. No one is authorized to speak unless cleared by multiple levels of authority and even then, to say or do anything that is nothing less than perfect is to fail. It is that Public Relations of which the world has become accustomed. Anyone who mars the perfect image risks banishment from the corporate world. Nightmare situations such as the current Toyota recalls reinforce the fear that Public Relations is a beast that must be closely guarded and heavily controlled.

This is why the new world of social media terrifies the old school. The unprecedented access to expressing our individuality on Facebook, Twitter, or even our own blog is the worst possible situation for those who believe that control of the message is the alpha and omega of Public Relations. Many companies are establishing strict policies for their employees on using Facebook, blogging, and all other avenues of professional or personal expression. Most of this comes from the management attitude that employees are a necessary evil and potentially a major embarrassment to the company.

What the old school of Public Relations doesn’t understand is that social interactive media (SIM) is creating a new model of business that is being driven by a desire of the consumer to do business with real people, not corporations. In today’s interactive world the branding of the individual is now becoming a driving force to he branding of the corporation. This is 180 degrees from the mission of most Public Relation professionals in major companies and it gives indigestion to old school managers that live in fear of employee self-expression.

Re-Imagine! Business Excellence in a Disruptive Age

In 2003, Tom Peters came out with a book called Re-Imagine!: Business Excellence in a Disruptive Age. If you understand that the book was published before Twitter and Facebook were available to the public, you have to wonder if Tom Peters can travel into the future and back again. Today everyone throws around the term ‘Branding’ but few know that today’s usage of the term originated from Peter’s 2003 book. On page 232 of Re-Imagine! Peters explains a new world of people who develop her or his individual brand separate from the corporate world. Now, in 2010, social interactive media has provided the vehicle for individuals to show off who they are and what they know and Peters has become the Moses of the new business world.

Like all business, the winner will always be the one who can embrace change before others. Companies that can adapt and use social interactive media to promote and showcase the quality and expertise of the individual within their ranks will have the advantage over the competition. In those companies the new role for the Public Relations professional is to help employees brand themselves instead of trying to muzzle them.

Still, the old school will loudly point out every slight misstep or mistake made by an employee that may reflect poorly on a company’s reputation. What they don’t understand is that errors make us human and that can deepen the bond between the company and the customer. An error is the opportunity to make things right and that is the key to all long-term relationships.

Training for the Worst Case Scenario

16 Tuesday Mar 2010

Posted by in Crisis Management, Human Resources, Lessons of Life, Management Practices, Violence in the Workplace

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

Tomorrow I fly to Philadelphia to put 26 Master’s degree students in a worst case scenario.  I’ve been doing this for over 10 years with Dr. Larry Barton, who is an expert in Crisis Management and Violence in the Workplace issues.  Dr. Barton and I have worked together for Disney, ABC, ESPN, Target, Nike, Merck, and several other companies.

Larry Barton - Crisis Management Expert (www.larrybarton.com)

Dr. Barton has written several books and has an endless number of case studies of workplace violence.  As the expert, he organizes the seminars and is the instructor.  I try to make it real.

In each case my job is to give the person or team the worst case scenario.  Sometimes I am the troubled employee that is ready to commit a violent act and take them with me.  Sometimes I am one of two ’employees’ that are in conflict the Threat Assessment Team has to figure out who is stalking whom.

In Philadelphia I get to do the fun role.  I am the CEO who has just taken over a company and the students, (all of them have jobs in the real world), have to interview with me to keep their job.  At the end of the day we debrief and I let them know who goes, who stays, and why.  I try to make the scenario as real as possible.  To do that I have to create a back story in my mind of what type of person my character is, his management style, what he values, and what he dislikes.

Like all worst case scenarios, the students are never told in advance what they will be undergoing.  It is safe to say if you’re in a seminar with Dr. Barton and I walk in, the day is going to be stressful.  It used to be stressful for me also, but I have gotten to a comfort level with challenging people in an educational setting.

Paul Kiser

As a potential violent employee I control the situation, which is similar to real life, but I always hope that I truly am the worst case they will ever experience in simulation or in real life.  The goal of the seminar is to help the participants recognize a problem and deal with it before it becomes a crisis.

As the take-over CEO I ask the probing questions, but the student must present themselves in a manner that they feel will help preserve his or her job….or not.  I always try to keep the scenario positive and give the students reasons to want to stay with the new company, but in order to keep it real I let them know that my expectations will not be the same that they had with their old company.  I have had situations where the student didn’t even care if they kept their real-life job, so pretending to keep a job in a simulated environment was impossible for them.

The interesting thing about the exercise is that I get to know the students as real people and often I find myself wishing that I would have the opportunity to work with them in a non-simulated environment.  Going through a stressful situation brings people closer, just like real life.

Playing the Whole Game

15 Monday Mar 2010

Posted by in Human Resources, Information Technology, Management Practices, Public Relations, Social Interactive Media (SIM)

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

I’m not a big sports fan.  I tend to skim through games and watch for a few minutes, but I don’t live for sports.  Still, I watch enough to qualify for my chromosomes and I do understand the strategies used in most sports.

On Saturday I caught bits of the Ohio State vs. Illinois basketball game.  It was a close game toward the end and Ohio St. did something that I really like…they played the whole game.  Twice Ohio State was behind by two points and they had several seconds left.  If they scored too soon it would give Illinois the opportunity bring the ball back down court and win the game.

The strategy many teams have in this situation is to stall and go for the last shot.  But Ohio State didn’t follow the traditional strategy.  They shot quickly and gave Illinois the opportunity to win.  The irony is that Illinois did play for the last shot and in both situations they failed.  In the end Ohio State won.

I was happy for two reasons.  First, I was happy to see Illinois lose because the Illini (players and fans) are known for their trash talk. They think it is part of the game.  The second reason is Ohio State won by playing the entire game.  They didn’t stall and try to win in a last second shot for victory.  They tied the game and then played defense.

Go Ohio State!

I’ve never understood the logic of the stall tactic.  I know the only thing that counts is the score when the clock reads 00:00, but the measure of a team is what they can do for the whole game, not just up to the final 40 seconds and then stop playing until the last three seconds.  What type of message does that send?

The Whole Game in Business
I see this attitude creep over into the business world.  I was once told about a manager for a major package delivery company.  He had a budget for labor and equipment.  The manager would get a significant bonus if he was under budget on his labor and equipment, so he deliberately over worked his salaried supervisors, worked understaffed with his hourly employees, and didn’t purchase the needed equipment for the staff to do their jobs.  He ‘won the game’ and got his bonus, but everyone hated working for him.

Some might think that this misuse of people and resources will eventually be discovered.  It is not.  Employees don’t like ratting on their boss because management often fails to act in situations where the manager is a success on paper and sometimes it is the employee that suffers for speaking out.  To my knowledge this manager is still in his position and nothing has changed in five years or more. He might have even been promoted by now.

This is one of the reasons why I don’t like most performance evaluation tools. They may be based on ‘quantifiable’ measurements, but quantifying doesn’t equate to fairness.  I don’t oppose goal setting, but business is and should be a dynamic process.  Goals and performance measures make bean counters happy, but the can often be manipulated to work contrary to the needs of the employees and/or customers.

The focus of any business should be to play the whole game and not work for the score at the end of the ‘quarter’.  This involves Management By Walking Around (MBWA) and letting small groups in the company experiment with new ideas (Skunk Works).  If this sounds like old Tom Peters stuff, it is, but it’s GOOD old Tom Peters stuff.

Tom Peters

I read Tom Peters first book, In Search of Excellence, soon after it was published in 1982, and I have been a disciple of his rants for over 25 years. Of course, you don’t win many corporate popularity contests when you’re guiding principles are reflected by a rejection of the status quo, but I’ve yet to be proven wrong….just fired or let go. I’ve been dusting off some of his books and scanning them again. I believe that almost everything a business person needs to be successful can be found in Tom Peters writings.

We’re facing a new business environment and it’s time we rejected the habits we fell into during the last 10 years.  We can start by going back to the basic question:  What does the customer need and how can we provide what they want, before they want it, and better than they expect?  Get that question right and everything else is easy.

Go Ohio State!

Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, OH MY!

12 Friday Mar 2010

Posted by in Human Resources, Information Technology, Management Practices, Public Relations, Rotary, Social Interactive Media (SIM)

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , ,

My boy, Alexander, is almost four years and five months old. In one month (Jan. 2010) Facebook had almost one unique visitor (134 million) for each second Alexander has been alive. That is a 95% growth over Jan. 2009.

A Social Interactive Media in Snow

Alexander - The same age as Twitter

Twitter is also four years old and it has over 23 million unique visitors the same month.   Their growth during this last year was ‘slightly’ bigger than Facebook.  Twitter grew by 294% in one year. By the time my son is eight, Twitter plans to have over 1 billion users.

It is staggering to see how many people are connected in the Social Media world, and even more staggering to see how much it is changing every month. A person who graduates from college this May from a four-year Business or Marketing program started college before Twitter existed.   Business colleges are trying to teach students about a world that is undergoing an extreme makeover every six months and they recognize the importance of social media in business.   Fortunately for students at U of NV, Dr. Simmons (www.bretlsimmons.com) is staying on the top of the tsunami of social media and how it impacts Branding.  Dr. Bret Simmons of the University of Nevada Business School calls Twitter “the center of the Social Media universe.”

But what about the rest of us. Why should we care about Social Interactive Media (SIM)?

SIM: End of Innocence
Imagine two people. Each want to start a bicycle shop in Davis, California. One rents space, puts up his business sign, advertises in the local paper and puts out flyers.

The other person does all that and also has a Facebook page, Tweets regularly on various items of note for bicycle enthusiasts, has a website with a shopping cart feature that allows people to order parts and purchase bicycles, and the owner has a blog about cycling in and around Davis. Who do you think will have more success? All other things being equal, the one who has better SIM smarts will have the advantage.

But it doesn’t just stop with business marketing. SIM is influencing opinion, shaping discussions, and in general changing everyone’s life whether they participate in the new media or not. Life is being changed because so many people are now involved in Facebook, Twitter, and other SIMs. A person can choose not to be involved and disconnect themselves from all forms of new technology. There will be a segment of our population that does exactly that; however, they will find themselves more and more out of touch with a world that isn’t waiting for them. No one knows what our society will look like in five years, but for those who unplug themselves from society, I think they will find the world is a lonely, foreign place.

Management by Coup 1: Eliminate Employee Evaluations

11 Thursday Mar 2010

Posted by in Human Resources, Management Practices, Re-Imagine!, Rotary, Tom Peters

≈ 8 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

by Paul Kiser

Paul Kiser - CEO of Enterprise Technologies, inc.

I have worked many years in Human Resources and at one time my job was to help managers write employee job standards and performance evaluation tools. I would like to now publicly apologize for playing a role in the dark side of management.

HR people can give you dozens of reasons why employee evaluations are absolutely necessary. You need to give the employee feedback, you need to let the employee know your expectations, evaluations are documentation of the employee performance, documentation is needed for disciplinary actions, blah, blah, blah, blah…it’s all BS. Here are four myths about employee evaluations:

Myth #1: Employees need periodic feedback
WRONG! Employees need constant feedback. Respectable HR people will tell you that there should be nothing discussed during the employee evaluation that they were not already aware of; however, in actual practice the employee evaluation is the moment many managers use the GOTCHA Management Technique by dredging up hearsay and listing new expectations that the employee has never heard before the evaluation.

Tom Peters discussed a technique known as MBWA or Management by Walking Around. The basic idea is the manager stops wasting time sitting in an office and spends it by interacting with his or her employees and customers. This brilliant 21st Century management technique was first discussed in the book, In Search of Excellence by Tom Peters and Robert H. Waterman in 1982! For over 25 years managers have been told to get out of her or his office to manage and yet some people still don’t get it.

Myth #2:  Evaluations are needed to support disciplinary action
While some managers use the evaluation as a GOTCHA moment, others will minimize a negative performance issue in order to maintain a positive working relationship; therefore, an employee’s evaluation often fails to support disciplinary action taken against them.  Time after time an employee’s lawyer seizes on a lack of evidence in the employee’s evaluation to justify disciplinary action by the employer.  A manager is better off having written documentation of a problem at the time of the incident rather than trying to use the evaluation to document an issue regarding the employee’s performance.

Myth #3:  Evaluations are needed to determine pay increases.
Pay increases need to be fair and equitable, but many organizations find that withholding a pay increase based on performance causes more potential legal problems than is solves, and punishment destroys employee morale rather than improves an individual’s performance.  Pay for performance was a novel idea that never delivered on the promises of improved productivity by the HR department.

Myth #4:  If a manager is not required to do periodic employee evaluations they will never give the employee the information they need to excel at their job.
An evaluation does not a good manager make!  If a manager is not giving constant feedback to their team, then what good are they?

Life Without Evaluations
I know it seems unthinkable for some, but evaluations are an HR imposed control system that is completely unnecessary.  In fact, evaluations do more harm to teamwork because they create a formal “Us vs Them” situation between the manager and the worker.  Evaluations can make a manager feel superior and that is not a good foundations for positive employee relations.

Other Blogs

Not so Greats are Killing American Business

10 Wednesday Mar 2010

Posted by in Human Resources, Management Practices, Public Relations, Rotary

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

by Paul Kiser

Tom Peters is one of the most annoying people in the world.  I say this because people are usually annoyed by a person who is always right and Tom Peters is almost always right.  For decades he has been scolding business, mocking those who excel at mediocrity, pointing out companies that are doing it better, and generally being relentless at not accepting the status quo in the corporate world.  Sure he gets paid big bucks to chastise organizations and industries to their face, but that doesn’t mean they like him.

Tom Peters book, Re-Imagine! Business Excellence in a Disruptive Age

After almost 30 years of spelling it out for executives and business leaders that they are doing it wrong, he still makes a great living from ranting at the corporate world.  The reason is simple.  It’s not because it is difficult to take his advice.  It’s not because Peters asks the impossible.  It’s not because the corporate world consists of stupid people (well, maybe a few).  The reason Tom Peters is able to continue his assault on business is because he offers the perfect commodity:  Common sense in a nonsensical world.

The problem is a fear of Greatness.  Most people seem to be comfortable doing good work and live in terror of risking failure by going for greatness.  Case in point:  Government.  Right now most State, County and Municipal governments are operating under the assumption that they have failed and the only thing they can do is plan for more failure.  You can’t do great things when you have decided you’ve already failed.

Jim Collins book, Good to Great, talks about how great companies have a realistic view of the challenges they face AND at the same time those companies are absolutely certain that they will succeed.  Taking the lessons learned from Collins research, greatness involves; 1) great AND humble leadership, 2) getting the right people in the right positions AND getting the wrong people out, and 3) confronting the facts, no matter how stark, AND believing that success is possible.

Tom Peters has shown repeatedly that we fall into traps of mediocrity and that’s the alpha and omega to squandering a great opportunity.  I am constantly amazed at how many people have never read Peters and can’t figure out why business seems so hard to understand.  I am more amazed at those that have read Peters and still don’t get that ‘good’ is never going to be ‘good enough’.

Should Managers Be Certified?

06 Saturday Mar 2010

Posted by in Human Resources, Management Practices

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

Any Damn Fool
To be a lifeguard you must be trained and certified.  To be a teacher in most school systems you must be trained and certified.  To do important financial record keeping you must be a Certified Public Accountant.  To be a carpenter you must be apprenticed and licensed.  The same is true of plumbers, electricians, and almost all building trade workers.  Doctors, lawyers, nurses, the list of licensed or certified vocations is endless.

But, any damn fool can be a manager.

There is no training requirement, no minimum standards, no testing, nor any regulation of the people who control the lives of those that depend on them for the guidance and instruction in the workplace.

But We Have Employment Laws
Some might say that we have employment laws to protect workers and in some situations we have unions.  Employees can and do sue companies when a manager acts inappropriately.  Federal, State, County, and Municipal agencies can also address issues of inappropriate acts of management.  Problem solved!  So what is the big deal?

In every case of poor management there is one common denominator.  The individual manager that should know better, but doesn’t.  If an individual manager acts in a way that is wrong, possibly even illegal, they can be sued or even fired, but that person can move on and still be a manager somewhere else.  What is worse, if the company condoned the behavior, there may be little the worker can do because there is no individual accountability of a manager.  In any other trained vocation there is individual accountability.  If an electrician is asked by his employer to not follow code the person knows that it is her or his license at risk; therefore, there is a check and balance in the workplace.  This same check and balance does not exist for a person in management.

Bringing Down the Economy Through Bad Management
In dissecting the causes of our current economic crisis we have learned that many managers coerced their workers to act in a manner that jeopardized not only the company, but the global economy.  What if a manager was risking his or her management certification to follow the directives of the company?  Certainly a certification is not going to stop bad management behavior, but it might cause a manager think about the consequences before they risk losing their career.

This problem extends beyond simple coercion.  While many larger companies may have training programs for their managers to educate them on employment law and company policies on the treatment of workers, smaller companies do not have the resources to train their managers and often have the worst of the worst managers.  The problem is that even the basic employment laws may not be understood by managers of small companies and if sued, the business may go bankrupt, leaving all the workers to suffer and the culpable manager free to look for his or her next job.

A Better Work Environment; Better, Wiser Managers; and Save Money
Certified managers might seem an absurd idea because it would impact so many employers and how they hire and promote management staff, however, consider the following:

  • State certified managers would be trained in Federal, State, and local laws and regulations thereby saving the companies from need to perform this function and save the expense of the labor and education costs.
  • Certified managers would be aware of laws; therefore, fewer issues of managers acting out of ignorance.  Saving time, conflict-resolution, and litigation.
  • Certified managers would mean even small companies would have access to managers who meet the standards of all managers regardless of company size.
  • Company condoned acts that violate the law, codes, or common sense would have to coerce the managers to risk his or her certification.
  • The Human Resources department could be significantly reduced and many internal policies on management behavior and standards eliminated.

Maybe it’s time we raise the bar on what it means to be in management and create minimum requirements and standards for managers.

The Coming Employment Perfect Storm

03 Wednesday Mar 2010

Posted by in Human Resources, Management Practices

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Storm Clouds on the Horizon
While some may fear a disaster coming in 2012, employers may want to worry less about the world ending and more about a new world emerging.

When the pendulum swings one direction it will always swing back the other direction.  In 2009-10, employment has swung to one extreme (labor surplus) and it’s not difficult to foresee it will eventually swing back the other direction.  The question for employers is what factors will influence the return because that will determine if we are moving toward equilibrium between labor and jobs or if we are moving into a new labor shortage.  Unfortunately for employers needing quality workers, a perfect storm seems to be brewing that may bring about the worst labor shortage since World War II.

A Symbiotic Relationship
The engine that drives employment is a symbiotic relationship between the employee and the employer.  In this relationship the employer provides; 1) wages and/or benefits, 2) job security, and 3) a source of pride and well-being from gainful employment.  In return the employee basically submits themselves to abide by the demands put upon them by the employer.

A One-Way Street
Unfortunately for the employee, employers have often exploited their workers by not providing one or more of the unwritten agreements of that symbiotic relationship.  Companies have been able to do this because a person’s need to survive has been largely dependent on gainful employment and though self-employment has been an option, it has been an option only if you wish to sacrifice your sense of security.  For a period of time labor unions helped the worker by leveling the employment playing field; however, with most unions devolving to some level of corruption, the employee sometimes is dealing with the lesser of two evils.

A New World
For decades we have observed that job security has been on the decline; however, the current recession has crushed the last vestiges of job security in the workplace.  Government and university employees were among the sectors of employment that still retained some job security, but this economic crisis has undercut the government revenue bases of property, sales, income, and many business taxes, leaving city, county, and state governments drastically cutting jobs.  No longer can an employee be deluded with the myth of job security and that removes the corner stone of the symbiotic relationship that employers have used to maintain some control on the labor market.  It is understood that for an experienced, educated worker there is no more risk in being self-employed than being under the thumb of a corporate manager.

The new reality is bad news for an employer that needs an experienced and/or educated workforce.  These workers are now seeking to earn their living outside of a corporate environment and organizations can no longer expect any leverage of a better opportunity within the corporate structure.  In fact, many people will discover greater opportunities and more control in the entrepreneurial world than behind the company desk.

The length of this recession is also contributing to dispelling the mystic of needing a job for a sense of well being.  With so many unemployed it no longer is a mantle of shame to be one of millions out of work.  Many unemployed workers are going back to school, re-imagining1 their careers, starting their own companies, working for volunteer organizations, or a combination of all the above.  Like a snow drift in Spring, the current labor surplus is gradually melting away and when employers return to the labor market they may find the labor surplus is a suddenly a shortage.

Damn Tom Peters!
In 2003, Tom Peters published his latest treatise on the future of business.  His book titled, Re-Imagine!  Business Excellence in a Disruptive Age, described the demise of the corporate employee.  His description of self-branded people who floated from project to project foretold an entrepreneurial environment where individuals reigned supreme and corporations fought for the best talent.  Whether Peters has a crystal ball or just exceptional perception, the impact of the current recession has made his predictions of the new workplace become our reality.

What to Do?
For the employer, the days of employment as usual are over.  Some human resource professionals may be smirking at the current power balance based on today’s labor surplus, but that smile will soon be wiped off his or her face.  The best strategy for an organization is to reevaluate the workplace and address any issues of people management that devalues the employee.  The guiding principal of treating the employee as an equal will help an employer to meet the new reality, but most organizations cannot fathom what that means.  Eliminating job standards, employee evaluations, and all other human resource and management tools designed to send the clear message that “we own you” will have to be sacrificed.  That is contrary to everything companies have been told in the past sixty years, but that is the only part of the extreme workplace makeover that will be necessary to revamp an organization for what is coming in the next storm front.  Many organizations that survive the new economy will emerge only to be swept away by the new workplace.

1Tom Peters term of rethinking the future of business.

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