Crushing Positive Employee Relations

Distracted managers not focused on the needs and expectations of employees is a major source of dissatisfaction for employees. Kudos (and my appreciation) to those committed to maintaining positive employee relations.

There are many things a manager can do to maintain positive employee relations. One thing a manager can do is to respect, acknowledge and appreciate their employees. Another, make sure you're as nice in email as you are in person. 

• Respect the impact an email can have on an employee. When an employee sees an email from their boss, their blood pressure actually goes up, no matter what the content of the mail is. But, understandably, blood pressure went up even more when employees got angry emails from the boss, or emails from a boss they perceived to be unfair. If you get in the habit of sending little bombs throughout the day, you will create a truly deadly workplace.
• Be consistent. People read a lot into emails because the emails are devoid of the nonverbal cues we use to judge a message delivered in person. If you usually send very cordial ones, and then send a cold one, people who depend on you will spend hours analyzing it. The more consistent you are, the more people will focus on your content and stop wasting time trying to figure out subtext.

Not sexy enough, I know, but being nice in email can help you to avoid legal landmines. Email transmissions are considered "documents," and can be used against an employer in a lawsuit in the same way as any written letter or memorandum. Moreover, deleted messages do not just "go away," but remain in the company´s electronic archives.  Deleted messages can be recalled, and an improper message can come back to haunt an employer months or years after the message was first transmitted.

Ready to fire off a strongly worded email, tip the balance of power in your favor and enjoy the illusion while it lasts?  Don't. Step away from the computer.

I expect more from a leader in my organization. You should too.

Departing Rants

A reader asks:

Any thoughts of how to address (departing) employee rants broadcast widely via email? Thanks

If the departure was of his or her choosing, thank your lucky stars for their assistance in ridding your company of the bad, bad employee. If the departure was because of you, pat yourself on the back.

The terms of the departure, time between disparaging email and departure date, the content of the e-mail, the position, role or influence of the employee in question are a few of the things to consider but I would tend to give it very little response or reaction. Employees are smart people and the good ones will see right through it and give the negative comments of a parting employee the weight they deserve - none.

Comments anyone? Agreeing and dissenting opinions both welcome!

The Devil Is In the Details

Supervisor walks into my office and says, "I don't want to hear about that Wein guy, I just want to know if the union has to be at this meeting I am having today."  What does that tell me? No legal jargon, no references to the Federal Labor Management Statute or the Federal Labor Relations Authority. Just the facts, Jack.

As he is describing what he plans to do, I am listening and seeking to answer a few questions for myself.

• Is it a formal discussion? Does the meeting concern a grievance, personnel policy or practice, or a general condition of employment? What is the length of the meeting, the location of the meeting, is attendance mandatory, will he use a prepared agenda?
• Is it an investigative interview? Does it involve a  bargaining unit employee and a management representative? is it conducted in connection with an investigation? Does the employee reasonably believe that this could result in disciplinary or advers action?

There is a clear distinction in the nature of the discussion at each of these meetings and this distinction is important.  In the case of a formal interview, the right to representation belongs to the union. That means that the union must be notified and has a right to attend, even if the bargaining unit members do not want representation. In the case of an investigative interview, the right to representation belongs to the employee and the employee must request it. The devil is in the details.

In this case it is neither. Turns out the supervisor wants to review new performance standards with an employee. I have some questions for him and he has answers. Yes, the employee is the only person these performance standards apply to. Yes, they were forwarded to the union for their concurrence and yes, the union concurred (remember this scenario is for demonstration purposes only!). He is closing out the current performance year under the current standards and will implement the new ones with the start of the new cycle. He is rating the employee fully successful or above.

If the answers were any different, we would be picking up the phone and inviting the union to a meeting. The devil is in the details and he can be a tricky one.

Another Day In the Neighborhood

Supervisor takes action. Union files a grievance. Welcome to another day in the neighborhood.

What if you are faced with a relatively minor issue in the big scheme of things but are just not comfortable with the actions you have to take to deal with the issue? Maybe it's not all about your comfort. Okay, let's think about that.  You are tooling along, taking the bumps as they come, varying off-course and doing what you can to be consistent in your actions. Interpretation is grey, however, it is clarified by day-to-day actions and doing what's right.

An employee does something wrong. A supervisor speaks with the employee and puts them on notice. If the employee does it again, the supervisor can take action. That action can range from choosing to do nothing at all to counseling on up to discipline. What the employee did wrong can alter this greatly but what if the employee's infraction was a number of relatively minor instances over a six-month period? What if the instances were all the same, i.e. AWOLs, unplanned sick leaves, customer complaints, or poor workmanship?

Time goes on, the instances pile up and the supervisor keeps notes. One day, the supervisor has had enough and takes an action. He counsels the employee. Union files a grievance. How do you advise? It depends. Are you comfortable with the supervisor's action?

You advise the supervisor. Supervisor does not hear. Welcome to another day in the neighborhood.

The Great Space Debate

Put me in front of an arbitrator to present a weak case, tell me one of our managers told a candidate he doesn't hire Wiccas, tell me to communicate that there will be no pay increases at all this year (I can go on and on), but please, please don't tell me that I have to fit 10 people who each have their own offices into 9 offices.  

What? I asked you not to tell me! Yes, I do know that space is getting tighter and I did not forget that I am planning to fill an open position in early 2008 and will then have to fit 11 people into 9 offices and maybe even into 8 offices if that other manager is hired. What is a girl to do?

I have a floor plan, know where the outlets, computer connections and phone lines are. I know how work gets done in my department. Rationally, I can do this rather easily. Rationally, I did it. Rationally, I began discussing this with staff. I quickly found out that this is not anywhere near a rational situation. Not even close!

Rationality goes out the door rather quickly when you have to work through and with the 3 Ps: people, personalities and preferences. I could have directed and not sought feedback but that really is not the way I operate. Things I had not considered were brought to my attention and a variety of alternate arrangements proposed (no teleworking from the spa is not an option unless I get to come). I have not yet spoke with all of my potentially impacted staff but I have made a decision.

Take my office. I am heading out for a really long vacation :)

It Can't Always Be About Being Right

When do you take a calculated risk? Can you call it a calculated risk even if it is a little difficult to see the "calculated" piece beyond your all too apparent frustration.

Here's the deal. You are in the midst of a settlement agreement. You are encouraged to settle because it supposedly does not look good for you in the end. All things considered, you determine that it would be best all around to close this out quick and easy. Quick and easy, ha! Everything is tooling along . . . .and then the bump. 

In settlement discussions, many options and approaches are thrown out for consideration. Once considered further, the options presented may not be feasible. What sounded like a good idea in brainstorming, may not after further inquiry. You review the other party's settlement proposal and see that the proposal appears to be negatively impacting the very group they say they were trying to protect. They may not realize this, so you tell them. They don't budge or seem to care. Why? It seems to you that they can't see beyond their need to make a point. They just know that they are right.

Do you take a calculated risk, end the settlement discussions and take this to hearing because you don't feel the group of people in question are being represented properly? You feel they are being used as a means to an end. Are they? Or could it be that you don't like it when the balance of power is not in your favor and you can't see beyond your need to shift it? You can't see beyond your need to make a point. You just know that you are right.  

What do you do? Absolutely nothing for 24 hours. Then you talk with your people on this side of the issue.  When they tell you to let it go, settle and move on, you do just that. You settle and you move on. You do it without calculation. You do it with a smile.