Canadian HR Reporter

CANADIAN HR REPORTER CANADIAN HR REPORTER May 19, 2014 May 19, 2014 INSIGHT INSIGHT 19 19 When policy, practice don't match When policy, practice don't match Organizations need to be more aware of the expectations they raise when advertising their mission, vision and values on their websites. By building an online presence, companies seek to position, brand and market themselves to attract customers to their products, cli- ents to their services and employ- ees to their workforce. e problem is many compan- ies don't put enough thought into the design of this online footprint. They seem to think the actual content doesn't matter. As long as there is a website and a mission statement — any website or mis- sion statement will do — then val- ues are optional: " ere, we have a website like everyone else, now let's get back to business." Quite often, the web content is hopelessly outdated and riddled with errors, as no one bothers to update and proofread content once it's online. e latest press release under the "News" tab is from September 2011. Job post- ings that closed months ago are still up. Some PR people and marketing departments seem to think cus- tomers won't actually read what is written and won't care whether a company lives up to expectations. HR people seem to think employ- ees and job applicants don't ac- tually read the posted HR manual and hiring policies. But a credibility gap will arise when the general public, potential customers and job applicants feel that an organization doesn't care. Building a brand is not just a matter of setting up a website or massive advertising campaigns. A brand is built one experience or one hit at a time. When a touchpoint occurs, the individual consumer, client or job applicant forms an opinion of a company or organization. First impressions last. Let's say ABC Inc. states that it strives to deliver the ultimate customer service. If a potential customer, inspired by a radio ad, calls for further information and is then treated rudely by the reception- ist or someone in a call centre, that's it for the customer service experience. And good luck trying to change that caller's mind by sending out flyers or e-coupons. The dis- appointed caller may also share her experience on Twitter, Face- book or a blog. In the realm of employment, organizations tend to present themselves as dynamic and fast- paced, while personal experiences and anecdotal evidence reveal it is obvious many are in fact static and slow-paced. New hires usually fi nd this out once they are already onboard. On their websites, com- panies tend to state something along the lines of "ABC Inc. is a progressive organization that is focused on continuous improve- ment and innovation. We off er a collaborative team environment with a dynamic culture and stan- dard of excellence." e hiring policy, if stated, tends to say, "We will hire and promote on the basis of candidates' qualifi - cations." Sounds great, doesn't it? Let's say ABC Inc. posts a job for an administrative assistant and it receives 300 applications. Let's assume HR invites 10 applicants for an interview and hires one of them. If the company does not at least acknowledge the other 290 applications with an automated "thank you" message — saying, for instance, "Only selected can- didates will be contacted for an interview" — it runs the risk of leaving 290 bad impressions. Each of these 290 disappointees may still be a future employee or customer of ABC Inc. and they will take this fi rst impression with them wherever they end up. Em- ployers should be mindful of the fact that people can handle a yes or a no, but won't put up with zero communication — it is just not good marketing. Organizations need to realize that employees, clients, custom- ers and guests talk to their family, friends and neighbours. "How are things at work?" is a com- mon topic at every family dinner, neighbourhood barbecue, birth- day party and chance meeting at your favourite grocery or auto parts store. So is every negative customer service experience, which people share with their personal network over and over. If ABC Inc. states on its website that new ideas are welcomed, its customers are its business part- ners and it wants to help employ- ees reach their full potential, it needs to back this up with action. If a customer comes up with a bet- ter or faster way to deliver prod- ucts and the company doesn't even acknowledge this idea, the customer may go somewhere else. If new employees want to sign up for courses that are relevant for their jobs and ABC Inc. brushes them off as too expensive, the em- ployees will realize they won't be reaching their full potential with that employer. People want to see congruence between values stated and values lived. Every company wants happy employees, a good work environ- ment and a positive culture. To achieve this, values need to be lived. Policies need to be enforced consistently and management needs to avoid condoning. When a company's policies on product quality, customer service, employee performance and hiring standards are routinely breached, it may as well not have these poli- cies at all. If employees engage in bad behaviour and others see them doing so with impunity, everyone in the company knows the behaviour is being tolerated. When employees are not do- ing their jobs and play the system, and management does nothing to stop this behaviour, it will likely be repeated. Meanwhile, the people who do take pride in their work feel punished as they have to pick up the slack. Where actual behaviours di- verge from stated values or poli- cies, employee morale erodes. It's like a cancer that spreads until the entire organization is rotten. is is usually the stage where man- agement starts wondering what happened to their once-great momentum. Mission statements and values cannot just be a bunch of words. e key is that before you post your mission, vision, values and policies, you need to actively work on matching behaviours. Evert Akkerman is a Newmarket, Ont.-based HR professional who has worked extensively in the private and non-profi t sectors and founder of XNL HR. He can be reached at info@xn- lhr.com or http://ca.linkedin.com/in/ evertakkerman. Evert Akkerman Guest Commentary Dealing with a star performer who's a jerk Dealing with a star performer who's a jerk Question: One of our most brilliant managers is also a little abrasive — a jerk, for lack of a better term. He does a great job and gets results, but runs roughshod over people in the process and doesn't really care what other people think. What are some tactics for managing this type of star performer?" Answer: Let's call a spade a spade. e only reason this manager is free to behave in an abrasive fash- ion is because he is allowed, en- abled and possibly even incentiv- ized to do so. Had someone in the organization set clear boundaries and held this person accountable long ago, things would never have reached this point. Contrary to popular myths, abrasive leaders are neither "jerks" nor evil. ey are humans trying to do their best in a world they perceive as exceedingly per- ilous, where they believe their competence and good standing are threatened daily by people who are incapable or unmotivat- ed, people who slow them down and prevent them from achiev- ing their objectives. When they sense such threats, their anxiety skyrockets and with it comes the impulse to self-defend through some form of attack. If someone submits a poorly edited report or is slow to learn a new system, these "jerks" per- ceive their goals or competence to be at risk. ey deal with this anxiety by lashing out, making a belittling comment or contemp- tuous facial expression, or engag- ing in excessive micromanaging, to name a few common reactions. I often hear " ey are bullies," " ey ought to know better" or "This person causes suffering, knowingly and intentionally." But my experience working with abrasive leaders in a coach- ing capacity has taught me that oftentimes they are utterly un- aware of their use of certain problematic phrases or their own negative, non-verbal behaviours. And even if they are aware that they are using these words or fa- cial expressions, they truly can- not see how their behaviour can be perceived as threatening or debilitating. In short, they suff er from signifi cant blind spot issues. So what should an organiza- tion do if it wants to retain this manager while eliminating the problematic behaviours? Try the following steps (note that while the strategies below are manager- focused, they are also eff ective for non-managers): Acknowledge organizational blind spots. Much like the abra- sive leader, the organization has blind spots and anxieties that lead it to take no action or the wrong action. The most common organi- zational blind spot is expressed right in the reader's question: "He does a great job and gets re- sults." Well, is that really true? He may achieve results but let's look at the (not so hidden) collateral damage. When people feel they are "run roughshod," fear, worry and anger aff ect their ability to concentrate and perform at their best. ey make mistakes, they lower their commitment to the organization that fails to protect them and instead of working, they spend hours commiserating with colleagues. ey engage in under-the-radar sabotage. ey play it safe to avoid ridicule. Add to that sick leaves, trans- fers, workarounds, departures of good people, complaints, HR and management time spent on dealing with all the above, and exposure to legal risks — and the notion of "He does a great job" becomes highly dubious. It might be worthwhile to quantify these costs before moving forward. Confront organizational fears. Organizational decision-makers are afraid of confrontation so they bury their heads in the sand. Or they're afraid of losing their star performer so they have "frank discussions" that fail to set clear boundaries and consequences. The organization needs to ac- knowledge its fears and move beyond them. Set clear boundaries. Initiate a focused discussion (or discus- sions) with the abrasive leader over a predefi ned and short pe- riod of time, in order to: •Remove the blinders. e abra- sive leader needs to understand how his behaviour aff ects oth- ers, the work environment and the brand itself. Describe the problem behaviours in a precise fashion, the concrete impact they are having and the risks these behaviours pose. Remem- ber that the manager may not be aware of either his behaviour or its impact. •Set clear parameters. Make it crystal clear the abrasive behav- iour must stop. •Outline the consequences of not changing. e person needs to grasp that his job is on the line. Without this clarity, sustainable change is less likely to happen. •Obtain commitment. e man- ager needs to agree to change. If he does not commit, then the organization will need to make some tough choices. •Follow up. Support the manager through the change in whatever way is necessary, including close involvement by the abrasive manager's own manager in the form of regular and frequent monitoring of progress, support and guidance. If done well, this path should solve the problem. However, sometimes the abrasive behav- iours are too deeply ingrained, possibly learned in childhood or early on in the person's career. In such cases, a referral to spe- cialized coaching can be most helpful. Sharone Bar-David is the Toronto- based president of Bar-David Con- sulting, a fi rm dedicated to creating civil work environments and coaching abrasive leaders. She can be reached at info@sharonebardavid.com. Sharone Bar-David Toughest HR Question My experience working with abrasive leaders has taught me that oftentimes... they truly cannot see how their behaviour can be perceived as threatening. Building a brand is not just a matter of setting up a website or massive advertising campaigns. A brand is built one experience or one hit at a time.

• Cover