Hey, stop talking about me on Face Book!

You might want to read an interesting blog post today involving another “Twittercide” This time having to do with the firing of a well known reporter at CNN. Read the post here Warren and Hays

If you have not yet adopted a social media use policy for your workplace, you may want to begin with the briefest of language to add to an employee handbook.  For example:

Social media use including blogging, and visits to social networking sites, is not permitted during business hours or on employer owned computers except where it has been specifically approved for business use. Also, employees should be cautious when using social media during non-work hours to avoid the appearance of speaking on behalf of [the employer] . Whether on or off duty, professional conduct is expected whenever an employee represents his or herself as an employee of this organization.  Employees are advised to keep in mind that all conduct that negatively impacts the workplace will be addressed through disciplinary procedures.  Unprofessional conduct on social media sites that serves to disrupt business or cause conflicts in the workplace will be addressed the same as any other personal conduct that interferes with effective performance of job duties.

The Institute for Corporate Productivity has recently published study findings which include an interactive graph that reveal the current benchmark for full time staff dedicated to human resources based on size of the organization and whether the organization is measured as a “high” performing organization or a “low” performing organization. Overall, the data reveals that 1.97 FTE are dedicated to HR for every 100 employees in high performing organizations while it is only slightly lower for low performing organizations. However, the difference between “high” and “low” is much greater when the results are narrowed down to specific sectors.

For example, if you are a non-commercial employer (this category includes public sector) in the US with less than 100 employees and measure yourself as a “high” performing organization, you report on average 1.08 full time HR employees. However, if measure yourself as a “low” performer, you report an average of 5.56 employees for the same size organization! 

Contrast this with organizations with between 100 and 1000 employees; high performing organizations report on average 2.51 FTEs dedicated to HR for every 100 employees and low performing report on average 1.74 FTEs for every 100 employees.

Even larger organizations, with more than 1000 and up to 10,000 employees, show a leaner number and smaller gap. They report on average 1.24 FTEs in HR for every 100 employees in high performing organizations and 1.38 FTEs in low performing organizations.

How do we interpret this data? First of all, the category of less than 100 employees does not contain enough data points be valid, and undoubtedly contains an outlier or two, but even as anecdotal information, it points out that the HR function must be performed in every organization, regardless of size, and the scope of concerns which must be addressed may create inefficiencies.  Therefore, organizations that report 0-1 dedicated staff likely outsource at least some of the HR function and those that report upwards of 5 or more are doing it all without sufficient resources and skill. The streamlined effect occurs when the organization is much larger and perhaps (we might speculate) dedicates more resources, i.e., technology and professional staff, to improving efficiencies.

Employee Engagement + Labor Relations

It is not unusual to hear managers say that employee engagement is important to their organization culture, and in the next breath offer a caveat – except for the bargaining unit. The sour tone of labor negotiations has either made management and labor want nothing to do with each other, or, the history of the relationship is simply viewed as “beyond hope”. 

In this newsletter, I will briefly look at the roots of the meaning of employee engagement and labor negotiations and propose that they, in fact, can and should intersect. Understanding how they interface within the organization can lead to meaningful and important changes in your management approach.

At root, “engagement” is about a relationship that is built on a germ of trust and respect.  Engagement has many shades of meaning, depending on the context. Even in war, we are “engaged”, but in every case, when we are engaged, we bring something of ourselves to the fore; we make a commitment, by word or deed. 

“Negotiation”, on the other hand, involves discussion intended to produce agreement, or a coming to terms. Negotiation also has multiple meanings. The word “negotiation” is from the Latin expression, “negotiatus”, past participle of negotiare which means “to carry on business”. When we negotiate, we attempt to dialogue, resolve disputes, produce an agreement, bargain for advantage and satisfy interests. 

Can we say, then, that engagement and negotiation are compatible terms? And by extension, that employee engagement and labor negotiations can intersect, or cross over in a meaningful way?

If we encourage a culture of employee engagement, can we also toe the hard line at the negotiation table? If we treat these two ideas as incompatible, and operate with two different sets of values, we are likely to produce an uneasy, uncomfortable work place.  And this can lead to dissatisfaction.

So it is important that we get this right. One way to do this is to build a common framework for these two types of engagement. But first, we should examine where re-construction is necessary. If we are going to build a common framework, we will need common ground.

Here are two sets of definitions that are specific to our discussion:

Employee Engagement[i]

• Measures of EE can be synonymous with measures of job satisfaction, including organizational commitment, psychological empowerment and job involvement. 
•  An engaged person is often described by some combination of the following words:
•  Enthusiastic, passionate, committed, willing to invest in the organization, pro-active, persistent, consistent, attentive, alert, inspired, proud, determined, strong and active.
• An engaged employee goes beyond what is typical or ordinarily expected and gives attention to a wider range of tasks than is typical or usual, and displays a positive emotional state directed toward the organization.[ii]

Labor Relations:

• At root, LR is the exchange of positions, demands or arguments on behalf of a group of employees. 
•  LR includes advocacy on behalf of a group to obtain the most favorable outcomes.
• Traditionally in LR the “adversarial” winner takes all; but more recently understood as “mutual gains” or mutual problem solving.[iii]
• Progressive LR models encompass creativity, dialogue and investment in personal relationships to extend mutual understanding of what is at stake.

 It appears from this set of definitions, that if employee engagement is the aim of an organization, it follows that some form of progressive model of labor negotiations will be essential if it is going to “cohabit” within the same workplace.  Both the union and the employer must look at the framework from which they currently operate, and achieve some understanding as to how that will need to change for mutual benefit.

If you have a traditional top down hierarchy in your organization, you are more likely to have a confrontational, adversarial relationship with your union in response to that environment. [iv]

This is true primarily because in a traditional framework, employees are dependent on their supervisors and managers to tell them what to do and solve their problems. The underlying assumption in the workplace is that employee interests are separate from that of management.

A different framework can be found in a model in which the workplace is viewed as an interdependent community, organized around a common purpose of providing a set of services or programs or products, to a set of stakeholders, with a distinct set of needs, economic and otherwise.[v]   If both management and labor perceive the benefits of working toward a common purpose, and are both willing to alter the prevailing assumption that labor and management lack common interests, then a labor-management partnership might be a viable option.

However, labor negotiations, typically, is not the place where mutual in-depth exploration of underlying problems and solutions will take place. The relationship at the table must reflect work that has gone on behind the scenes in some form of a labor management partnership. 

Within this new framework, the community must first be guided by a common purpose and a common set of values. This must include a recognition of and commitment to the needs of all stakeholders, internal and external. Labor and management must be seen as part of the same interrelated system. Learning and growth will propel and sustain a culture of employee engagement. A dynamic work environment will have feedback loops so that people know “how they are doing” and will be able to measure progress. Creative energy will be released through collaborative work on problem-solving. 

Finally, the rules, boundaries and parameters of the labor negotiation process must be clearly communicated and perceived as fair, even if separate and apart from the normal day to day interactions. In this context, values do not need to be altered, even if the rules have changed and even if it requires being “tough” or toeing the hard line. Bargaining is another aspect of the engagement relationship, and if each side feels a sense of urgency to resolve matters for the whole of the community, the adversarial spirit will be less likely to arise. On the other hand, trust and respect do not exclude being tough. The hard work of negotiation will not be the center point of management labor relationship, but rather, the continuation of sustained efforts to achieve meaningful results.

[ii] In “A Historical Perspective of Employee Engagement: An Emerging Definition”, Michael Bradley Shuck and Karen K. Wollard, Oct 2009

[iii] Getting to Yes, Roger Fisher and William Ury, 1981, Revised 1991.

[iv] Bodine, Neil. “Rethinking the Workplace”. Center for Collaborative Solutions. www.CCSCenter.org

[v] ibid

Friends Consult

When dogs bite and bees sting, we bring to mind our favorite things, but when things get stuck, or stale, what we need are a few good questions to evoke the spirit of engagement.

Over the years of working with people, I have found a few questions to be nearly fool proof.  While the goal is to get something going, to move in a new direction, or to clarify, the point is to engage and to encourage others to bring more of their self to the matter at hand. Whether we are managing or consulting, we intend to put an idea into motion with the participation of others. For that, we need to energize others in both heart and mind.

So here goes, these are a few of my favorite questions, just in time for holiday gatherings. May your holidays abound with good cheer and meaningful conversation around the table. 

1.            Tell me about a time when….

2.            What does it look like when [that] is happening?

3.            Would you say things are better, worse, or about the same?

4.            What is the most difficult aspect of what you do?

5.            Why is that important?

6.            What has been your experience with [that]?

7.            What is the heart of the matter for you?

8.            What makes this hard for you to discuss?

9.            What is your concern?

10.          What would help you move forward? What would hold you back?

Apparently, the legislature is not in the mood to object to making public employee salaries even more transparent. A client recently asked me whether I knew the status of S.B. 107, [here] titled the “Governmental Salary Act” which requires Commonwealth and local agency public employers to post annual salaries of all employees on the internet. Local governments will be required to post current salaries on their local website and send a link to the page to the State Treasurer’s office.  I inquired at my Senator’s office, Jeffrey Piccola, and learned from Kirsten Kenyon, a member of his staff, that while most bills are on a hold until the budget is passed, she suspects this one will be passed in the fall session.

In response, I am sending the following comments, and hope you will consider echoing them to your state representatives.

I have long been an advocate of transparency and believe compensation professionals in both private and public sector agree employers should be accountable in two basic ways: One, the how of setting pay, and two, associated ranges which provide the minimum and maximum pay rates, or pay ranges, for job classifications. This information meets the test of integrity and accountability, the two key factors in recruiting the best candidates. It also signals to the public and relevant stakeholders that the employer is acting responsibly.

After all, whether public or private, stakeholders care about the same thing: does this organization use a fair and equitable pay system? If it does not, then no one wants to work there, or invest in market shares, or support tax increases, whatever the case may be.

Posting specific compensation rates does not accomplish the test of whether pay is fair and equitable. Specific pay rates do not tell us what factors govern the setting of pay or how the job is valued compared to others in the organization or in the job market.  For example, the public is largely unaware that professional municipal managers with graduate degrees are a dying breed (though they will not appreciate my metaphor) and as a result they are commanding ever increasing salaries because they are so few.  Will the public posting of salaries reflect education levels and years of experience?  Has anyone fashioning this bill thought about what it will be like at public meetings if a handful of the public decide to protest pay rates of individuals.   This strikes me as irresponsible policy!

The bill states that nothing in it is intended to interfere with the duty of a public employer to provide pay information under the Right-to-Know Law. Unlike the proposed legislation, the Right-to-Know law provides a reasonable process and procedure for requesting specific pay information that allows an employer to understand who is requesting what information and for what purpose. Although it may seem to be a minor detail, it is important in our political process that a measure of due diligence, as well as, due process, be incorporated into the laws we make.

Home again, after a successful CCAP (County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania) conference at Seven Springs Pennsylvania, with some great memories and new contacts. Everyone has a different experience and perspective, but here are some of the highlights for me:

• Monday morning, I sat between Lancaster Commissioner Dennis Stuckey and Timi Kirchner of Stevens & Lee, for the Keynote, Michael Hoffman of Igniting Performance, and when he told us to stand up and greet five other people as if we were at a family reunion, we looked at one another with a discernable “UH oh” and a quick glance around for the closest exit. But by the end of the session I was wiping tears from my eyes from laughing so hard. I think we all needed the relief (who really wants to listen to more about how bad things are?) and the message, which was about relationship building and caring about others as a mark of leadership. Especially when we feel we are at the center of a tornado, which these days, is not so unusual. Think about making relationship building a priority!
• Met an interesting person in the exhibit area names Mike Baker, of GOV DEALS. He described his business as an EBAY for government. Cool! For those who are working on GOING GREEN, this is a good resource. www.govdeals.com.
• I was also impressed by another consulting group, Delta Development Group, Inc. (www.deltaone.com) that can provide local government with a host of services, but right now they are helping government get and comply with the reporting requirements for economic stimulus monies. And they can also help you leverage your IT which is critical in this time of restructuring and “resizing”. John Mizerak was the person I spoke with and very helpful.
• Did you know that it is possible to utilize merit hire systems other than the State Civil Service Commission?  At a breakout session, we heard from DPW and others close to the developments in this area. Although still in initial stages, this is worthwhile to investigate as it is critical our human services programs secure a more efficient and effective system for hiring and promotion. Kristin Woellner is a contact person at CCAP (www.pacounties.org) if you would like more info. You can also download a report on the status of civil service at this site http://lbfc.legis.state.pa.us/reports.cfm  (look under Oct 2004).
• Unsure of which session I should attend next, I followed a friend to the Offender Rehabilitation session, and WOW, was I impressed! Pittsburgh is doing a lot of things right these days, and the County is no exception to this rule. The Jail and Human Services staff formed an integrated team to coordinate better re-entry and transition services to reduce the burden on the jail system, and the results have been so impressive they are soon to be a Center of Excellence.
• In the last session I attended Michael McDavid, Regional Director of Penn State Cooperative Extension, walked participants through the Center for Leadership Studies, Situational Leadership assessment tool. We learned that each leader not only has a primary style of leadership but has different degrees of adaptability to other styles.  As leaders, we must adapt to a variety of styles and match our style to the needs presented by the situation.
• C.S. McKee hosted another awesome barbecue Tuesday evening that was accompanied by the No Bad Ju Ju band. What a great dance band!

This is a small glimpse, there was plenty more to recommend this conference. The annual fun run/walk, the golf event, great hospitality rooms (thanks especially, Kimball Associates and Benecon!) informative sessions on funding opportunities through the ARRA and economic development.  And as always, legislative and legal updates

Hats off to the CCAP staff-

 Look forward to seeing everyone at the next conference event!

Strategies – What’s the Big Deal?

Strategies convey the way we get things done in organizations. Everybody has them, but the question is: can we explain them? Are they transparent, intentional, and based on shared understanding? Whether we refer to ourselves, our team, or our organization, without attention to strategy, default patterns hold sway and no real change is possible.

Only when we can detect default strategies can we begin the process of change from old patterns to new ones. If we blank out the order we have imposed on our surroundings, and attempt to see the chaos of ever merging, diverging, converging patterns of interactions, communications and activities, we might begin to appreciate the value of adapting and reacting to the environment in new ways. Only when we take the time to consider “old ways” versus “new ways” can we detect the difference and measure results.

Without supporting strategies, goals fall flat and are immune to measurement.  Strategies relate to how we define and establish costing systems, or configure and apply management information systems to our business model. Strategies are also the way we tap wisdom at the workplace, and the “rules of thumb” that implicitly inform our decision-making.

When strategies are identified, defined, and understood in the context of the highest goals, they lend themselves to the process of feedback and measurement.  So, strategies are the link between goals and outcomes that keep us engaged, talking to one another, debating, evolving ideas, and moving forward.

Next Time:         Performance measure opportunities you might have missed.

What does a WWII movie made in 1957 have to do with leadership challenges today? Grab the DVD and a few friends, and discover (or more probably re-discover) the amazing lessons of this paradoxical drama, based on historical events, that shine through time and cross many boundaries of conventional thought.

If you haven’t seen the movie the basic premise is a British outfit is captured and taken to a Japanese prison camp in southern Burma. Their fearless leader, the British Colonel Nicholson (Alec Guiness) is pitted against Japanese Camp Commander, Colonel Saito.  The movie opens with the captured men marching into camp whistling the Colonel Bogey march.  The tune has come to be synonymous with courage and esprit de corps and if you were at a pops concert this past July 4^th (as was I) you probably whistled it.

From the first encounter, Colonel Nicholson and Colonel Saito face off in a clash of culture. Colonel Saito views the other Commander as a coward for allowing his troops to surrender, but he quickly learns he underestimated the mental toughness of his opposition when the British commander refuses the order for his officers to engage in manual work alongside the other men in a bridge construction project.

Colonel Nicholson cites the Geneva Convention rules and refuses to compromise even at great risk to his own life and that of his officers. When Colonel Saito capitulates in toto, Colonel Nicholson embarks on an ingenious plan to motivate his men by employing his officers to direct his men in building the finest bridge their Japanese counterparts could possibly imagine.

First lesson; the Geneva Convention rules were created to set boundaries for ethical behavior in war time situations. They gave Colonel Nicholson credibility and authority and established him as a leader while the ignorance or disregard for the rules diminished the leadership capacity of Colonel Saito. What relevance do these rules have today given recent events in Guantanamo and can analogies be made to other global concerns where ethical guidelines are absent?

 Second lesson; Colonel Nicholson began with a clear mission and vision for his troops, but also conveyed strong values to undergird his leadership. As the project unfolded, he became over identified with the project to the point that he lost sight of strategic advantages or disadvantages of the bridge in a wartime operation. In essence, like a lover, he fell so in love with his project, he lost his head, the consequences of which define the ending of the movie.  What were the signs that he lost his way and how might this development have had different outcomes?

Third lesson:  Colonel Saito portrays a ruthless commander at the outset, but when he relinquishes power to his opposition, in order to get his bridge completed, he falls under a spell of malaise fueled with jealousy of his opponent’s success and especially the loyalty and respect he receives from his men.  Did Colonel Saito demonstrate leadership in a) relinquishing power and b) bolstering Colonel Nicholson’s efforts? What cultural differences in understanding about leadership existed between the men?

This movie is littered with great characters and insights into human nature which can be discussed and debated from numerous perspectives.

What lessons and insights can be added to this list?