Tag Archives: Employee evaluations

HR/Security Hot Topic: Should you watch your employee’s personal Internet activities? (Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, etc.)

28 Thursday Oct 2010

Posted by in Branding, Business, Communication, Consulting, Crisis Management, Customer Service, Employee Retention, Ethics, Government Regulation, Honor, Human Resources, Information Technology, Internet, Management Practices, Pride, Privacy, Public Relations, Re-Imagine!, Recreation, Relationships, Respect, Rotary, SEO, Social Interactive Media (SIM), Social Media Relations, Violence in the Workplace, Website

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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

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

Paul Kiser

One of the hottest topics in the world of employment is whether or not an employer should monitor his or her Internet activities. This is a subject I’ve written about before, but it is an issue that is still emerging and has yet to have any significant case-law to provide guidance to employers.

It is well-known that a large number of employers perform a ‘Google’ search on the Internet before they hire an applicant, but now companies are feeling the need to continue to monitor an employee’s Internet activities after hire. Many experts, especially those involved in employee liability prevention support an employer’s right to monitor an employee’s Internet activities even when those activities occur off-duty and offsite. The logic is that it is prudent to aware of anything an employee might say or do that could embarrass the employer, or any indication that the employee might take an action that might involve the company and its facilities.

These are rational arguments, but I believe that monitoring an employee’s activities is opening the door to bigger liability issues. Sound odd? Here’s the scenario I see happening in three Acts.

Should the Employer be Big Brother?

Act One: A busy-body employer or manager casually checks his or her employee’s Facebook, MySpace, and/or Twitter accounts. The employer might even do a Google search on an employee from time to time. When the employer or manager finds something that they see as objectionable they confront the guilty employee and take the proper action. It becomes known throughout the company (and the employee’s family) that the employer monitors its employee’s personal Internet activity.

Act Two: An employee has been reprimanded for content they have posted on the Internet. Six months later the same employee posts information on the Internet that he  is considering suicide and describes in detail how he is going to kill himself. Two weeks later the employee carries out the suicide as described. The family is aware the employer monitors the employee’s Internet activity and sues the employer claiming that the employer should have reasonably been aware of the planned suicide and taken action.

Act Three: Companies find themselves with two polar opposite choices. Either the company does not monitor their employee’s Internet activities or the company assigns resources to constantly monitor the Internet on every employee to insure they capture any relevant data for which the company should take action.

I was trained in Human Resources under the policy that what the employee did on her or his own time was off-limits to the employer unless it had a direct impact the job performance. That policy has had to be adjusted in a world where work and off-duty time can often be hard to differentiate, and where drug testing, researching credit scores and background checks have become standard operating procedure for many companies. However, an employee’s personal Internet activities is almost impossible to track in a society that is increasing involved in hours of daily online social networking. The question is whether an employer wants to be liable for monitoring its employees 24/7/365 and being held responsible for taking the appropriate action, or whether the employer would be better served by not being sucked into liability issues that can be avoided by simply not playing the role of Big Brother ?

I know which strategy I would recommend to my clients.

More Articles

Business: Public Relations, Management, and Social Media Related

Rotary Related

Science Related

Personal Experience Related

Our Country and History Related

Relationship Typing: 3 factors that affect quality and depth of friendship (Part I)

27 Wednesday Oct 2010

Posted by in Branding, Business, Club Leadership, Communication, Employee Retention, Ethics, Honor, Information Technology, Internet, Lessons of Life, Management Practices, Membership Recruitment, Membership Retention, Passionate People, Public Relations, Relationships, Respect, Rotary, Social Interactive Media (SIM), Social Media Relations

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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

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

Paul Kiser

Several weeks ago I was at a Rotary District Leadership training meeting and I made a comment that the Social Media tools like Facebook and Twitter allow us to have more friends and more connections to other people. I was shocked into silence when one of the facilitators said that he didn’t want that. He explained that his friends were those very close, very special people that he choose to be friends with, and that he didn’t want to dilute his social circle with people from the Social Media.

It was an interesting point and it caused me to start thinking about the quality and depth of the relationships of the people around me. In several decades of business, procurement of two bachelor’s degrees, and almost a decade in Rotary I have learned that not everyone is my ‘friend’ even though I may have frequent contact with them. All of us have people who are important to us and we all have people who we just don’t like, but until now I hadn’t focused on the factors that seem to define my relationships.

Understanding what shapes my attitude is a significant step towards taking an active role in building better and less conflictive relationships with the people around me. For this reason I wanted to explore what determines what type of relationship we have with another person.

I have come up with three factors that seem to determine the quality of my relationships. 1) Trust, 2) Common Interests and/or Experiences, 3) Equality.

Trust, Common Interest, and Equality

The trust factor seems obvious, but I find this to be a complex issue. Trust can be absolute, non-existent, or conditional. For example, I would propose that many employer/employee relationships are based on a conditional trust where both parties are on the constant guard of the other person betraying his or her trust.

The common interest and/or experiences factor may also seem obvious; however, sometimes common interests or experiences can create feelings of jealousy, envy, rivalry, or disgust. Just because two people have a lot in common doesn’t result in a bond of appreciation.

The final factor is not as obvious. My experience is that the level of equality felt by a person is a significant factor in determining the quality and depth of a relationship. In an organization of volunteers like a Rotary club we often mistakenly believe that everyone is equal, but my experience has been that the relationships that form in a typical Rotary club are often shaped, at least in part, by one person’s feeling of superiority over another.

Using these three factors I have been able to better define the quality and depth of my relationships. Because each of  these factors have a positive and negative component, I use an 21-point scale (-10, -9, -8, … -1, 0, +1, … +8, +9, +10) to score their significance. For example a Relationship Type might be low in trust (-7), high in common interest (+8), and neutral in equality (0). While all relationships reflect a continuum of these factors I have defined seven benchmark relationship types and have scored each factor on the 21-point scale.

In part two of this article I will define the seven relationship types and their scoring. I also will discuss how the relationship type might impact membership retention in a Rotary club.

Click on the link below for the continuing article
Rotary@105: Relationship types affect membership retention

More Articles

Business: Public Relations, Management, and Social Media Related

Rotary Related

Science Related

Personal Experience Related

Our Country and History Related

Is it time to fire yourself?

27 Friday Aug 2010

Posted by in Business, Communication, Consulting, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Employee Retention, Government Regulation, Higher Education, Human Resources, Lessons of Life, Management Practices, Passionate People, Public Relations, Re-Imagine!, Relationships, Rotary, Tom Peters, Universities

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

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

Paul Kiser

One thing I have observed in government, hospitals, universities, and small business management is that all of those fields tend to be people collectors. What I mean is those particular fields have a high incidence of people who have passed their expiration date.

Why?

Government, hospitals, and universities tend to: 1) pay their employees well, 2) offer good to great benefits, 3) offer prestigious positions, and 4) have incompetent human resource professionals. A person who lands in any of these three fields may be an excellent performer for several years; however, every human being needs new challenges and after five to seven years they lose the excitement of the job. The problem is that because they have moved up to the top of the pay scale (pay scale: an example of HR incompetence) the person discovers that if they were ever to leave that job they would have to: 1) take a pay cut, 2) risk losing their excellent benefits, and 3) not find as prestigious position as what they have in their comfy current job.

Now that excellent performer is trapped like a caged animal in a job that has no challenges for them. The result is what we have in America today. Government services, hospitals, and universities that are operated by uninspired people who’s most important priority is to go home at the end of the day. And where is the human resources professional? Standing there preaching that all those systems they created that cause employee burnout are absolutely vital for retaining employees.  People collectors.

Show me an organization that prides itself on long-term employees and I’ll show you a group of people who shoved innovation and creativity into a file drawer decades before.

So why did I include small business owners in with this unhappy, unproductive group of people?

For small business owners the trap of mediocrity is different, but it has the same result.  Initially, a new business owner is excited by the challenge of creating a business from nothing. If they are successful they find the satisfaction of beating the odds, which is like a drug to a business owner. Then comes the fear of losing everything they built. That fear always, always, always leads to becoming conservative. Don’t take chances and don’t risk failure. But it doesn’t stop there.

Eventually, the intelligent business owner realized that his/her business has become stagnant. He/she then tries a series of half measures that stirs the pot but doesn’t make anything new happen. They shake up their sales team, join a peer group (they serve the same function as HR), purchase clever productivity software, or…God forbid, hire a consultant. The result is a temporary change in activity that fails to address the real problem. Fear of failure. Thus, the small business owner becomes a people collector, and they are the one collected. Stuck in a place they can’t get out of and yet, don’t want to be.

My best advice I can give to a small business owner who is stuck in this trap? Fire yourself. Put someone in charge of your company, expect that they will drive it into the ground, and go out and build a new business. At the very least you will no longer live in fear, but you will more alive than you have been in years.

More Articles

Mega Executive Pay Leads to Poorer Performance

31 Monday May 2010

Posted by in 2020 Enterprise Technologies, Branding, Customer Relations, Human Resources, Management Practices, Public Relations, Re-Imagine!, Rotary, Science, Social Media Relations, Women

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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

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

Paul Kiser - CEO 2020 Enterprise Technologies

Mega executive pay and bonuses do not work. Mega executive pay and bonuses do not work. Mega executive pay and bonues do not work. Got it? No? Then watch this RSA Animate video by theRSAorg posted on YouTube featuring Dan Pink discussing pay and motivation:

Dan Pink: Drive and Purpose YouTube Video

In research and the real world the idea that mega pay makes for mega profit has been proven wrong over and over, yet we still have corporate directors handing out millions of dollars to single individuals…even when that person has led the company to failure. Why? Let’s go back to cognitive dissonance.

We are conditioned to believe that the more we pay, the better the quality. That is drilled into us. Value is determined by how much money we pay for a product or service. How could it possibly be different in paying an executive? So when MIT research, or Goldman Sachs, or BP, or Massey Energy, or General Motors , or Washington Mutual, or Merrill Lynch (the list goes on) demonstrate that mega pay does not equal mega performance…or even good performance, then people overlook the evidence and begin to use irrational logic to justify mega executive pay. Earlier in May, Bill Virgin wrote a piece for The News Tribune in Tacoma, WA to justify corporate exec pay where he said:

“Corporate CEOs have employees, labor unions, investors, customers and government regulators to worry about.”

One might think that CEO’s were alone on a white horse fighting off evil with a shiny silver sword according to Mr. Virgin.  The fact is that often the workers under the CEO have a much more stressful environment and in some cases lives hang in the balance, so the CEO’s typical responsibilities fail to be a good reason to pay them hundreds of times more than the workers under them.

The surprise is how little is written in support of mega pay for executives. I believe this is due to the people who make the decision (corporate directors) having no reason to adopt executive pay policies that are based in common sense and every reason to maintain the status quo, but they also have no reason to justify their reasons to anyone.  Massive pay means the appearance of importance and if you are the person handing out the massive pay you are even more important. From a corporate director’s boardroom chair the investors aren’t revolting and the customers are still buying, and Republicans are still protecting the practice, so there is no issue to discuss publicly.

But the practice has to change. Not only is it ineffective, it is immoral. Many years ago I worked in a retail store and I learned that the corporate CEO was making $4 million per year and each store was only making an average of less than $250,000 net profit per year. That meant that the work of thousands of employees in over 16 stores were dedicated to providing the salary of one person…and I can tell you, he wasn’t worth it.

If you watched the Dan Pink video you’ve learned that human motivation is based on many factors. I think the important thing to remember is that ‘satisfaction‘ is the most fleeting of all our emotions. Money is junk food in the world of motivation and performance. Too much just makes you sick.

More blogs

Relationships and Thin Slicing: Why the Other Person Knows What You’re Really Thinking

28 Friday May 2010

Posted by in 2020 Enterprise Technologies, Book Review, Branding, Communication, Customer Relations, Human Resources, Lessons of Life, Management Practices, Membership Retention, parenting, Public Relations, Relationships, Rotary, Science, Social Media Relations, The Tipping Point, Violence in the Workplace

≈ 7 Comments

Tags

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

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

Paul Kiser - CEO of Enterprise Technologies, inc.

You’ve been warned about ‘this person’ and now you’re being introduced to them. You smile and shake his hand and say, “nice to meet you.” Visibly, you are polite and friendly; however, inside your hoping to be able to move on because even though you’ve never met him before you are preconditioned to not like him. The introduction ends and you move on believing that went things went smoothly. He walks away knowing that you dislike him and he begins to form a negative impression of you. In less than five seconds you have cemented a negative relationship…and you didn’t even know it. What happened?

Malcolm Gladwell

In Malcolm Gladwell’s book, Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking, it is called it thin-slicing and it is based on solid research. Gladwell uses many examples of how the human brain picks up seemingly unseen and unheard clues and can accurately identify what is going on in a given situation. In one example, researcher John Gottman and his team coded conversations between married couples using 14 emotional identifiers (1=contempt, 2=anger, etc.) and found that they could accurately predict whether or not the couple was heading for a divorce by the subtle clues that betrayed the inner thoughts and attitudes of each person. Most of these signals lasted a second or less, but the signal clearly indicated the inner feelings of the person and the pattern of their relationship.

Gladwell argues that in a thin-slice experience we usually do not know what we know, nor why we know it, but the evidence is conclusive, we do know it. It is often described as a ‘feeling’ and people usually cannot explain it to others, so it is usually dismissed as being oversensitive. Gladwell‘s research suggests that the feeling is real and that our unconscious mind is the source of the analysis that creates a tangible, and accurate feeling and/or assessment of the situation.

Conversations Are Never Just Casual

Based on the information in Blink one can conclude that when someone has a dislike for someone, or when people discuss someone else behind their back, the attitudes felt or expressed privately will be exposed in subtle hints the next time we meet the subject of the gossip. We are taught as children to not gossip about others, which was a valuable lesson based on what we now know; however, in the business world people often discuss work performance of subordinates with their peers or superiors. Those discussions then shape our attitudes about the subordinate, which are then revealed in our next interaction with the worker. The same can be said of any relationship, whether it be a superior/subordinate, peer/peer, Club member/member, parent/child, spouse/spouse, or any interaction between two people. Simply put, strong attitudes and opinions about another person can and will be read by that person at the next meeting.

But what is worse is once a negative relationship is formed it is almost impossible to revert it to a positive relationship. Gladwell says that if a person has contempt or other negative attitudes towards someone, even a kind or reconciliatory gesture will be misread as manipulation or motivated by a hidden agenda. That idea is reinforced by the theory of cognitive dissonance, which suggests that once we have an opinion or belief about something we will reject evidence that contradicts our opinion or belief and will even go so far as to manufacture evidence or examples to support our version of the truth.

Do We Have to Like Everyone?
Certainly we don’t have to have a positive relationship with everyone, but negative relationships tend to expend more of our energy and time. This is especially true for people in positions of leadership. Consider the time spent on emails, meetings, phone calls, and emotional stress that involve interactions with people who we have an adversarial relationship versus the support and positive reinforcement we receive through friendly relationships. It is obvious that a negative relationship that is based on our preconditioning to dislike them is not only counterproductive, but also an unnecessary waste of time and emotion.

The first step in avoiding the downward spiral of negative relationships is to recognize that our internal dislike for someone is not hidden from that person. Our actions, behaviors, and responses will be picked up and will, in turn, dictate their response to us. Gossip, whether it is causally done with friends, or professionally sanctioned as part of ‘assessment’ of subordinates is dangerous to our relationship with that person and will ultimately make our life more difficult. Most of us were taught at some point to never say anything about anyone unless you are prepared to say it to their face….it is a good rule in the home, at work, or anywhere else.

Rotary's Four-Way Test

Rotary has a Four-Way Test that is a guide to any relationship. It is meant to take Rotarians to a higher standard in business and in life. The ‘test’ is as follows:

  • First, is it the Truth?
  • Second, is it fair to all concerned?
  • Third, will it build goodwill and better friendships?
  • Fourth, will it be beneficial to all concerned?

Great words that can help us to build great relationships…even when sliced thin.

More articles

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!

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

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