Anyone in the HR business can relate to this, having been assigned to a project that, as it turns out, everyone has an opinion about, from the janitor to the board rooms. In one of my previous posts (When Good Turns Bad) I have discussed handling good intended but bad advice based on uninformed reasoning. But what if others start voicing their opinions, in full disregard of a careful alignment process, in a manner that can only be described as ballyhoo and hysteria?
Big HR projects have that tendency of evoking very heated, emotional discussions. They often touch the core identity of an organisation, reaffirming or challenging existing principles and values which are deeply rooted in the organisational culture. Some principles may have been forgotten, but once contested they can arise as a phoenix to inspire and guide as before.
These kind of projects prove a challenge for leaders to channel opinions towards a meaningful result. No doubt, every single comment has value. Question is, how much value should you give it? Or isn't that the key question?
I have learnt that opinions come in different shapes and depths. It is quite tempting to judge them on their value and dismiss them if they do not seem to bring you any. More than once have I been frustrated by people who have shared their opinion not hindered by any lack of knowledge, and wrapped with a fair share of value judgments. My default reaction has been until recently to educate the uninformed, militantly separating fact from fiction. Little did I understand that I was missing the point entirely.
Very few people are truly evil but many people partake in mindless behaviour. Uninformed or unsubstantiated opinions are easily read as inconsiderate, impolite or even narcissistic. As true as this often may be, it stands to reason that the underlying motives are those of disengagement. People feel they lose control. And when things change in an organisation, everyone has their own pace of understanding and acceptance. Such a development comes with emotions, silent or expressed. Those leading the change need to recognize and embrace it.
I have just read an article (The Missing Link of Change: Suspension) by a contemporary thought-leader, Lolly Daskal, discussing the stages of grief as a model for understanding emotional responses to organisational change. What I seem to have been missing all these years is to actually comprehend how people process change, to understand the process of emotional development. Addressing that process with tongue instead of ears, trying to knock out the critics with arguments instead of truly listening will strangle any re-engagement at birth. So the key question is: How to create space for people to re-engage?
How do you deal with ballyhoo and hysteria?
Posts tonen met het label behaviour. Alle posts tonen
Posts tonen met het label behaviour. Alle posts tonen
woensdag 13 februari 2013
donderdag 10 januari 2013
Bullshit Management
Today I would like to share my book review of Bullshit Management: Return to the essence of organisations by Jos Verveen (The Hague, Academic Service, 2011). Why more than a year after publishing? Well, the simple answer is that I have just recently started this blog, but I really feel this book deserves your attention.
Bullshit Management busts the ubiquitous myth that investing in management pays off. It reads unfettered criticism, disputing any proof of a scientific blue print for success, even questioning well-established theories of Taylor and Mayo. Moreover: due to all these models, methods and terminologies, more and more organisation are losing sight of their essence. This book calls for abandonment of management and urges organisations to take matters into own hands again. While products and services prove distinctive quality of organisations, the best way to organize is unprecedented for as well. According to Verveen, you would anyhow not need a management book for that.
Paradoxically, whereas the writer critically questions the usefulness of models, theories, systems, structures and terminologies, his book went management book besteller in The Netherlands. To my knowledge there is no English edition yet, so my Anglo-Saxon followers unfortunately have to settle for this post, for now.
The Essence of an Organisation
I recently came across the following Tweets:
"Business is about creating value. Making money is just a pleasant sideproduct."
"Most of what we call management consists of making it difficult for people to get their work done."
These are just two posts of many that I have seen and read, instigating critical review of management as a concept. Verveen builds his case around experiences he has gathered during his former career as business consultant. In his book, he claims that business management is characterised by continuous efficiency reviews whilst overlooking the essence of an organisation, which does not equal 'managing'.
"The essence of an organisation stands far from the goal of business management which is profit maximisation by increasing the productivity. The essence has therefore also nothing to do with finding an optimal strategy to obtain high productivity. Neither does the essence equal the effort of designing the organisation in the most efficient way to implement that strategy. An organisation has not originated, grown and survived due to management, but only by holding on to its core essence. Each step away from this essence opens the door for building an organisational 'house of cards' which needs management, a lot of management, to keep it straight. A house increasingly filled with people questioning themselves what it exactly is they are doing there."
A Vicious Circle
Recent U.S. gun control debates somewhat got me drawing a parallel between gun lobbyists and management disciples. They both claim to have the solution for a problem what according to others is the root problem in itself. And both advocate for even more of it when the soup hits the fan. Of course the impact of guns cannot be compared with that of management, though in the wrong hands, both can have dramatic social consequences.
If not already by the title of this post, then surely at this point in the text I must have upset some business school graduates. For some, management is a religion. But let me just ask those readers the following then:
According to you, what motivates people to work?
Certainly not management, right?
And according to you, what makes people engage to dreams bigger than their own?
I suspect few would answer 'management' here as well.
Lastly, according to you, what keeps people focused on creating value?
Precisely.
Yet with any sign that motivation, purpose or focus is lacking, we immediately seek to gain control by management. The irony is that management distracts people further from what should give them motivation, purpose or focus, perpetually clouding the essence of the organisation. A vicious circle indeed.
Return to The Essence
The solution this book offers to break the circle is quite obviously to seek that essence again. To stop organising work around peripherals and to start organising it around that what truly matters, what we feel will create value. His case continues even deeper by arguing that management and its goals, productivity and profitability, have poisoned our economies, and some businesses may find that there is actually no value in what they produce.
Verveen envisions a society that revolves around an economy with equal distribution of scarce resources in which true enterpreneurs and professionals bring genuine value while following their actual talents (see also The War for Talent Hoax). A Dutch politician has recently disputed that the current crisis could be solved with economical growth, arguing that economical growth is in fact the cause of this crisis. Maybe the crisis will lead us to a world closer to Verveen's vision...
My lessons learnt from this book: There is no blue print for success, but hard work, common sense and the ambition to bring genuine value will likely give you a head start on your competition.
For those (Dutch readers) who have read it, feel free to leave your review in the comments below. For the others, you can find Jos Verveen (@josverveen) on Twitter and ask him personally to publish an English translation.
Bullshit Management busts the ubiquitous myth that investing in management pays off. It reads unfettered criticism, disputing any proof of a scientific blue print for success, even questioning well-established theories of Taylor and Mayo. Moreover: due to all these models, methods and terminologies, more and more organisation are losing sight of their essence. This book calls for abandonment of management and urges organisations to take matters into own hands again. While products and services prove distinctive quality of organisations, the best way to organize is unprecedented for as well. According to Verveen, you would anyhow not need a management book for that.
Paradoxically, whereas the writer critically questions the usefulness of models, theories, systems, structures and terminologies, his book went management book besteller in The Netherlands. To my knowledge there is no English edition yet, so my Anglo-Saxon followers unfortunately have to settle for this post, for now.
The Essence of an Organisation
I recently came across the following Tweets:
"Business is about creating value. Making money is just a pleasant sideproduct."
"Most of what we call management consists of making it difficult for people to get their work done."
These are just two posts of many that I have seen and read, instigating critical review of management as a concept. Verveen builds his case around experiences he has gathered during his former career as business consultant. In his book, he claims that business management is characterised by continuous efficiency reviews whilst overlooking the essence of an organisation, which does not equal 'managing'.
"The essence of an organisation stands far from the goal of business management which is profit maximisation by increasing the productivity. The essence has therefore also nothing to do with finding an optimal strategy to obtain high productivity. Neither does the essence equal the effort of designing the organisation in the most efficient way to implement that strategy. An organisation has not originated, grown and survived due to management, but only by holding on to its core essence. Each step away from this essence opens the door for building an organisational 'house of cards' which needs management, a lot of management, to keep it straight. A house increasingly filled with people questioning themselves what it exactly is they are doing there."
A Vicious Circle
Recent U.S. gun control debates somewhat got me drawing a parallel between gun lobbyists and management disciples. They both claim to have the solution for a problem what according to others is the root problem in itself. And both advocate for even more of it when the soup hits the fan. Of course the impact of guns cannot be compared with that of management, though in the wrong hands, both can have dramatic social consequences.
If not already by the title of this post, then surely at this point in the text I must have upset some business school graduates. For some, management is a religion. But let me just ask those readers the following then:
According to you, what motivates people to work?
Certainly not management, right?
And according to you, what makes people engage to dreams bigger than their own?
I suspect few would answer 'management' here as well.
Lastly, according to you, what keeps people focused on creating value?
Precisely.
Yet with any sign that motivation, purpose or focus is lacking, we immediately seek to gain control by management. The irony is that management distracts people further from what should give them motivation, purpose or focus, perpetually clouding the essence of the organisation. A vicious circle indeed.
Return to The Essence
The solution this book offers to break the circle is quite obviously to seek that essence again. To stop organising work around peripherals and to start organising it around that what truly matters, what we feel will create value. His case continues even deeper by arguing that management and its goals, productivity and profitability, have poisoned our economies, and some businesses may find that there is actually no value in what they produce.
Verveen envisions a society that revolves around an economy with equal distribution of scarce resources in which true enterpreneurs and professionals bring genuine value while following their actual talents (see also The War for Talent Hoax). A Dutch politician has recently disputed that the current crisis could be solved with economical growth, arguing that economical growth is in fact the cause of this crisis. Maybe the crisis will lead us to a world closer to Verveen's vision...
My lessons learnt from this book: There is no blue print for success, but hard work, common sense and the ambition to bring genuine value will likely give you a head start on your competition.
For those (Dutch readers) who have read it, feel free to leave your review in the comments below. For the others, you can find Jos Verveen (@josverveen) on Twitter and ask him personally to publish an English translation.
donderdag 20 december 2012
The Extra Mile
Anyone who has ever worked for a boss is likely familiar with it. You have either read it before you applied for that job, seen it when you signed your contract or dealt with it during your employment.
Have you guessed it already?
I am of course referring to the job description, job profile, job requirements or whatever definition your employer gave to that piece of text explaining your role in the organisation. A narrative summary of the main job characteristics, formalizing the exchange relationship on the part of what you are supposed to deliver in return for rewards.
A job description is one of the main instruments in HRM. It supports hiring managers in the recruitment, payroll managers in designing equitable pay systems, development managers in defining possible career paths, supervisors in managing the performance and process engineers in improving efficiency. Adding the job's reporting lines will establish an organisational hierarchy as well.
You would imagine such a key tool to be maintained in detail. However, the reality is quite often far from this. It is not uncommon that organisations have to do a review of their job descriptions after 4, 5 years of neglect. Or worse, once started as concise descriptions of the main responsibilities, job descriptions have become interminable lists of tasks and activities. And yet organisations tend to militantly hold on to these paper truths. As if their absence would result in destruction and chaos.
At the same time, job descriptions become extremely important for employees during role evaluation or restructuring. When change can potentially result in adverse consequences for pay, employers have find themselves more than once in a dispute with the employee over it.
So why do people give so much value to job descriptions?
I have come to learn that job descriptions are needed in the absence of purpose, mastery and autonomy (see also Drive by Daniel Pink). People who understand what needs to be done, are capable and empowered to do it, would not need them. High-performers in your organisation who take responsibility over and beyond what they should contribute on paper, probably do not know even know what their job description says. Their drive is by no means influenced by anything remotely close to paper-based responsibilities.
But when purpose, mastery and autonomy are absent in an organisation, you will very likely not find leadership either. People follow people, not paper. But in the absence of a strong leader, they will hold on to that one certainty they have on paper which justifies their presence in the organisation and substitutes for a lack of purpose.
You will recognize organisations with paper-based responsibilities when the majority of employees are not going the extra mile for their employer; there are always individual exceptions. Minor inconveniences grow to be perceived as aggravating factors, often resulting in excessive claims for extra reward - to the extent of 'billing behaviour'. Worst-case scenario, clinging to paper-based responsibilities can create an organisational culture of island-thinking and dumping problems.
Should we then abolish job descriptions?
Job descriptions will go extinct one day. Forcing its extinction as a strategy would not be my advice. Focusing on leadership, on the contrary, is for many reasons advisable. Simultaneously you could work on a culture in which people learn to focus on what the organisation wants to achieve. The purpose and mastery which is fostered this way will shape an organisation with change capacity, forward-focused, instead of hanging on to the past by static documents with activities that were needed 4, 5 years ago. It will create a culture in which people will more likely go the extra mile, as their job is not defined by words but by a shared purpose they believe in.
Do you think job descriptions are still relevant? Do they make you go the extra mile?
Have you guessed it already?
I am of course referring to the job description, job profile, job requirements or whatever definition your employer gave to that piece of text explaining your role in the organisation. A narrative summary of the main job characteristics, formalizing the exchange relationship on the part of what you are supposed to deliver in return for rewards.
A job description is one of the main instruments in HRM. It supports hiring managers in the recruitment, payroll managers in designing equitable pay systems, development managers in defining possible career paths, supervisors in managing the performance and process engineers in improving efficiency. Adding the job's reporting lines will establish an organisational hierarchy as well.
You would imagine such a key tool to be maintained in detail. However, the reality is quite often far from this. It is not uncommon that organisations have to do a review of their job descriptions after 4, 5 years of neglect. Or worse, once started as concise descriptions of the main responsibilities, job descriptions have become interminable lists of tasks and activities. And yet organisations tend to militantly hold on to these paper truths. As if their absence would result in destruction and chaos.
At the same time, job descriptions become extremely important for employees during role evaluation or restructuring. When change can potentially result in adverse consequences for pay, employers have find themselves more than once in a dispute with the employee over it.
So why do people give so much value to job descriptions?
I have come to learn that job descriptions are needed in the absence of purpose, mastery and autonomy (see also Drive by Daniel Pink). People who understand what needs to be done, are capable and empowered to do it, would not need them. High-performers in your organisation who take responsibility over and beyond what they should contribute on paper, probably do not know even know what their job description says. Their drive is by no means influenced by anything remotely close to paper-based responsibilities.
But when purpose, mastery and autonomy are absent in an organisation, you will very likely not find leadership either. People follow people, not paper. But in the absence of a strong leader, they will hold on to that one certainty they have on paper which justifies their presence in the organisation and substitutes for a lack of purpose.
You will recognize organisations with paper-based responsibilities when the majority of employees are not going the extra mile for their employer; there are always individual exceptions. Minor inconveniences grow to be perceived as aggravating factors, often resulting in excessive claims for extra reward - to the extent of 'billing behaviour'. Worst-case scenario, clinging to paper-based responsibilities can create an organisational culture of island-thinking and dumping problems.
Should we then abolish job descriptions?
Job descriptions will go extinct one day. Forcing its extinction as a strategy would not be my advice. Focusing on leadership, on the contrary, is for many reasons advisable. Simultaneously you could work on a culture in which people learn to focus on what the organisation wants to achieve. The purpose and mastery which is fostered this way will shape an organisation with change capacity, forward-focused, instead of hanging on to the past by static documents with activities that were needed 4, 5 years ago. It will create a culture in which people will more likely go the extra mile, as their job is not defined by words but by a shared purpose they believe in.
Do you think job descriptions are still relevant? Do they make you go the extra mile?
maandag 10 december 2012
The Black Holes In a Leader's Universe
Let me just get straight to the point:
The universe does not exist of leaders and followers only!
There, I said it.
In every group, formal or informal, you will find people who do not have the best intention with your interests, with the group's or their own for that matter. In fact, some of them might even be self-destructive. Though the most common among them is the selfish kind. Some might act as follower for a while but always in their own interest. Or they may convince others to follow their path of selfishness, but that does not deserve to be called leadership. They are a minority, but a dangerous one. Sowing bad seed whenever and wherever possible, workplaces included.
People who are determined to put their own interest before anything or anyone, will not easily associate. Dissociation seems to be their standard modus operandi. Any effort to engage with them is therefore likely to fail, unless it serves their interest. Are they worth writing a blog about? No. However, it may be worthwhile to investigate how to recognize these black holes in your universe before they suck all the attention away from what really matters. Especially for those of you who have the courage to dedicate your lives to leading others.
Authentic leaders, more than any, will show their vulnerability to those they lead. Getting hurt is a part of the deal. It is, however, a whole different ballgame altogether if the hurt becomes intentional.
Here are some signs that may help you identify them within your group:
- malicious gossip; if they talk about others with you, they will talk about you with others
- no support, only opposition; bringing (your) leadership in question is their automatic response to a glitch, whereas you will not hear them if the course remains otherwise steady
- 'them against us' mentality; they have a natural tendency to put the blame for everything with the other party, preferably with those in a position they hold responsible for their own position
- inconsistencies; it involves people without scruples, not short of telling a lie or two
- lack of commitment; they are the 'friends' who are absent in times of need
It is not my intention with this blog to instigate a witch hunt in your community or organisation. If at all I would suggest an approach, it would be engagement. You may find these signs with people who are in fact willing to lead or follow, but have been disappointed along the way. Engage. And when it fails, try again. But as I said, you will run into individuals for whom this will never work.
Now you know.
Have you ever identified a black hole in your universe? How did you deal with it?
vrijdag 7 december 2012
The Thing With Common Sense
Whatever definition you use for common sense, it usually refers to particular knowledge attributes which most people already have, or which the person using the term believes that they do or should have. A regularly used statement for common sense is: "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should."
But what if everyone around you shares a belief which you don't? Does it make your opinion less true? Shouldn't you be acting on your thoughts then? Before science hit us with its truth, people thought the earth was flat. The possibility of falling of the edge of the world was common sense at the time. Thinking differently would have exposed you to mockery at the least, but more likely to facing the inquisition for blasphemy. Even to this day, your life can be in danger in some places where your beliefs, be it religious, ideological or simply political, are a minority.
How can you tell that common sense makes sense?
I don't think you can! Common sense is not always based on facts. Actually, it navigates quite often between science, pseudoscience or just popular belief. Between realism and idealism.
Why do we use it so rigorously?
Sharing beliefs gives us a sense of significance, comfort and security. The more we share, the more it takes refuge in our social DNA, as fundamental patterns of our behaviour.
Is that a bad thing?
Jein (this is a portmanteau of the German equivalent for 'yes' and 'no'). Many of our daily choices are made on our built-in automatic pilot, also known as our conscience or ethical compass. At times when you turn indecisive, a quick check with the majority opinion or what your peers are doing, can ease your passage through life. But that is also a pitfall. The use or at least the overuse of common sense seems to have two side effects you might consider as negative:
A low appetite for risk, causing us to rely on other people’s knowledge – or what we think they know - instead of evoking exploratory behaviour.
It involves past thoughts. Thoughts take time to manifest into the physical world. What is creating our reality today is in large a result of the thoughts we have been thinking or sharing with others a while ago.
Is there a way to practice common sense in forward decision-making for an unknown reality?
Of course. As I said, common sense navigates between realism and idealism, meaning that there are still individuals or collective thinkers who will continue moving beyond the frontiers of common reality or immediate possibilities, mostly for the better of society. They do not see common sense as a constant but rather as a variable in a complex formula. In fact, without this continuous challenge of what we think to know, we would not have evolved as a human race.
Where can I find these forward thinkers?
These individuals can be found in various parts of our community. They can be scientists, teachers, entrepreneurs, CEO’s or politicians. Even as a parent you may find yourself in a role where you will have to prepare your child not only for today’s reality but the future one as well.
What unites these people?
LEADERSHIP. Common sense can become a dangerous instrument if not in the hands of people who are fearless enough to challenge the status quo. Or when applied in a scientific manner without counterbalancing opposing views. A fearless leader will ask questions like these:
The Ultimate Question Being:
How do I ensure that our common sense can answer tomorrow’s questions?
What does your common sense tell you?
But what if everyone around you shares a belief which you don't? Does it make your opinion less true? Shouldn't you be acting on your thoughts then? Before science hit us with its truth, people thought the earth was flat. The possibility of falling of the edge of the world was common sense at the time. Thinking differently would have exposed you to mockery at the least, but more likely to facing the inquisition for blasphemy. Even to this day, your life can be in danger in some places where your beliefs, be it religious, ideological or simply political, are a minority.
How can you tell that common sense makes sense?
I don't think you can! Common sense is not always based on facts. Actually, it navigates quite often between science, pseudoscience or just popular belief. Between realism and idealism.
Why do we use it so rigorously?
Sharing beliefs gives us a sense of significance, comfort and security. The more we share, the more it takes refuge in our social DNA, as fundamental patterns of our behaviour.
Is that a bad thing?
Jein (this is a portmanteau of the German equivalent for 'yes' and 'no'). Many of our daily choices are made on our built-in automatic pilot, also known as our conscience or ethical compass. At times when you turn indecisive, a quick check with the majority opinion or what your peers are doing, can ease your passage through life. But that is also a pitfall. The use or at least the overuse of common sense seems to have two side effects you might consider as negative:
A low appetite for risk, causing us to rely on other people’s knowledge – or what we think they know - instead of evoking exploratory behaviour.
It involves past thoughts. Thoughts take time to manifest into the physical world. What is creating our reality today is in large a result of the thoughts we have been thinking or sharing with others a while ago.
Is there a way to practice common sense in forward decision-making for an unknown reality?
Where can I find these forward thinkers?
These individuals can be found in various parts of our community. They can be scientists, teachers, entrepreneurs, CEO’s or politicians. Even as a parent you may find yourself in a role where you will have to prepare your child not only for today’s reality but the future one as well.
What unites these people?
LEADERSHIP. Common sense can become a dangerous instrument if not in the hands of people who are fearless enough to challenge the status quo. Or when applied in a scientific manner without counterbalancing opposing views. A fearless leader will ask questions like these:
- How common is our common sense?
- Why has it become common?
- When did something else stop being common?
- Is there a minority belief? And if so, what is it?
- Do these opposing opinions need to be brought together?
- Etc.
The Ultimate Question Being:
How do I ensure that our common sense can answer tomorrow’s questions?
What does your common sense tell you?
vrijdag 30 november 2012
The War for Talent Hoax
"Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid." ― Albert Einstein
This quote by Einstein has been my motto for some time now. At first, because it gave me the pleasure of knowing that I am a genius too. But the more I learn about myself and about others, and what motivates us in our personal or professional life, the more meaning these words seem to acquire. Moreover, it has raised questions with me about the concept of 'talent' in business, finally causing me to think that talent management is just one big hoax. I will tell you how I came to this conclusion...
Everybody is a genius
Various intelligence tests pretend to give conclusive, scientific proof of differences in cognitive and emotional intelligence between individuals. But what are these tests actually measuring? In 1968, George Land gave 1,600 5-year-olds a creativity test used by NASA to select innovative engineers and scientists. He then re-tested the same children at ages 10 and 15. The test results were staggering! 98% at age 5 registered genius level creativity, 30% at 10 year and 12% at 15 years of age. The same test given to 280,000 adults placed their genius level creativity at only 2%! (Source: http://www.calresco.org/lucas/create.htm)
It seems from this test that there is a negative correlation between what we are taught by education or upbringing and the capacity to be a genius. Now you could argue that George Land's test is dated or have doubts about the soundness of his methodology. However, you cannot deny that education has prepared us first and foremost for a place in society, for a J-O-B. Building knowledge and skills to increase performance behaviour for our adult professional life. Whether these learnt behaviours actually match our innate talent, emerges for some at a young age (wonder-kid or high school drop-out), for others at an older age (career swappers) but for most of us never at all. We are all born unique, but many of us sadly die as a mass product of society. What we did has defined who we are, instead of the other way around.
So if everyone is a genius at birth and has the capacity to be great, what exactly is that talent 'thing' that distinguishes us?
Judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree
Could it be that in business we identify talented people on behaviours that might not have anything to do with their TALENT? At least it is not as conclusive as e.g. in sports or in certain arts. Now let's assume that this is in fact a system error, still these acquired behaviours may have great value for your business. In the end, knowledge and skills are the vehicles for performance behaviour. And those who are eager to continue learning are likely equipped to improve their performance, increasing the chances to success for themselves and consequently the company they work for. If the task is 'to climb a tree', one can execute it and has the ability to raise standards, who cares it is a fish? Maybe nobody does. The sad thing is however, that somehow it is missed out that the fish could have been the fastest swimmer. A task that was already assigned to Sid the sloth.
Of course, the system would probably not allow for such flexibility that everyone can be shuffled around within a company towards a job that better fits their innate ability. Anyhow it would take a lot of courage of leaders to do so without any probability of successful performance behaviour they are so used to measure through knowledge and skills.
The alternative for finding the best job for your employee is evidently finding the best employee for your job. Now in a business era of extreme competition where time is money, companies are fighting for the best tree climber. And so the war for talent has started.
Recognize the hoax!
Everyone knows that you need a strategy to win a war. This is where companies started developing talent management. A very broad concept, where activities range from attracting to retaining key talents for the organisation. However, we might as well call it 'waste-management'. A lot of companies apply talent management in a utilitarian manner. Employees who, if they are not, or at least not fast enough, showing the expected behaviours, are exchanged for the next candidate. These companies are stuck in an obsessive search for the best person for the job that they miss out on the possibility that:
1. an under-performer can be an over-performer in a different job
2. business success is a team effort and successful teams require complementary instead of similar minds
3. creating successful teams cannot be done with blue prints
4. team performance will excel once each individual knows his/her talent and understands how to combine them with the other talents
5. not recognizing your 'non-talents' creates an atmosphere that eventually makes people want to leave, whereas 'talents' leave first as they can easily find another job
But as I am still learning, I am sure I have missed some lessons. Can you teach me?
woensdag 28 november 2012
Ethical codes: A catalyst for responsible behaviour or a waste of paper?
Being part of an international organisation with offices in about 100 different countries and a workforce with 150 nationalities, I have witnessed a growing stack of rules on professional and ethical behaviour. The more the organisation grew in staff numbers and subsequent cross-border mobility, the more need for employee compliance, partially imposed by the environments we operate in. Partially. As a value-based organisation, the majority of rules are self-imposed.
Did all these ethical rules help create a safer environment with less workplace issues?
I am not about to disclose any sensitive information, but I can tell you that we most probably behave as an average organisation. So let me just put it to you bluntly: There is no evidence that ethical rules lead to better performance or a friendlier atmosphere. It is more likely that an organisation's core values and mission attracts people with compatible personal values, allowing communal values to exist which in turn foster the office culture. This makes it hard to justify the existence of ethical codes.
Will a person who has difficulties controlling his/her anger behave less aggressive with a protocol in place? Will a corrupted person then operate with more integrity? Not very likely.
An ethical code could assist employees in understanding the difference between 'right' and 'wrong', and applying that understanding to their decisions. But then again, how many errors can you make in a professional environment by not knowing the ethical rules? Or, not very uncommon, what if the rules do not give you a black and white answer to an issue?
If you want to create a safer environment, here are 3 Lessons-learnt from my experience:
1. Make values tangible
If decisions are better when made within the ethical frame of an organisation, then it would make sense to recruit on personal values that are compatible with the organisation or a particular trade. Use them as criteria with higher value than knowledge or skills. It will proof harder to change values as opposed to enhance someone's knowledge and skills. Evidently the organisation's leaders relentlessly make decisions that touch base with core values.
2. Create an open environment for raising concerns
An open door, I know. Though I want to stress that a nonjudgemental approach is paramount. Behaviours are best discussed on the impact that they have on one's environment, team dynamics, results etc. An open environment also implies that dealing with ethical concerns should not be delegated to some committee somewhere in a far corner of your organisation. They should be discussed at the heart of your organisation, preferably on the workfloor.
3. Show zero-tolerance for misconduct
Once someone has portrayed questionable behaviour, it needs to be addressed. The worst thing a leader can do is disconnect from the issue and allow for it to evolve to an endemic situation. This does not imply that one should always respond with discipline (often why codes exist). Sometimes it is even not necessary to address the individual directly, in private or public. Nevertheless the behaviour itself should always be addressed, preferably with the entire team present.
For clarity sake, I am not promoting for a deletion of codes. I am merely downplaying their value as opposed to these three things you can influence as a leader. As I am still learning, I am sure I have missed some lessons. Can you complete my list?
Did all these ethical rules help create a safer environment with less workplace issues?
I am not about to disclose any sensitive information, but I can tell you that we most probably behave as an average organisation. So let me just put it to you bluntly: There is no evidence that ethical rules lead to better performance or a friendlier atmosphere. It is more likely that an organisation's core values and mission attracts people with compatible personal values, allowing communal values to exist which in turn foster the office culture. This makes it hard to justify the existence of ethical codes.
Will a person who has difficulties controlling his/her anger behave less aggressive with a protocol in place? Will a corrupted person then operate with more integrity? Not very likely.
An ethical code could assist employees in understanding the difference between 'right' and 'wrong', and applying that understanding to their decisions. But then again, how many errors can you make in a professional environment by not knowing the ethical rules? Or, not very uncommon, what if the rules do not give you a black and white answer to an issue?
If you want to create a safer environment, here are 3 Lessons-learnt from my experience:
1. Make values tangible
If decisions are better when made within the ethical frame of an organisation, then it would make sense to recruit on personal values that are compatible with the organisation or a particular trade. Use them as criteria with higher value than knowledge or skills. It will proof harder to change values as opposed to enhance someone's knowledge and skills. Evidently the organisation's leaders relentlessly make decisions that touch base with core values.
2. Create an open environment for raising concerns
An open door, I know. Though I want to stress that a nonjudgemental approach is paramount. Behaviours are best discussed on the impact that they have on one's environment, team dynamics, results etc. An open environment also implies that dealing with ethical concerns should not be delegated to some committee somewhere in a far corner of your organisation. They should be discussed at the heart of your organisation, preferably on the workfloor.
3. Show zero-tolerance for misconduct
Once someone has portrayed questionable behaviour, it needs to be addressed. The worst thing a leader can do is disconnect from the issue and allow for it to evolve to an endemic situation. This does not imply that one should always respond with discipline (often why codes exist). Sometimes it is even not necessary to address the individual directly, in private or public. Nevertheless the behaviour itself should always be addressed, preferably with the entire team present.
For clarity sake, I am not promoting for a deletion of codes. I am merely downplaying their value as opposed to these three things you can influence as a leader. As I am still learning, I am sure I have missed some lessons. Can you complete my list?
Abonneren op:
Posts (Atom)