An article in the Globe and Mail captivated my attention.
It said that roughly 1/5 of Canadian employees are experiencing increased job insecurity, particularly in the Business Services and Communications industries.
Is this really any surprise?
Given the volatility of the markets lately, and the fact that organizations are in essence terminating staff to compensate for their leaders' inability to properly handle risk or renegade investments, should not be held to surprise for any party involved.
What's more interesting is more directly related to the HR industry itself.
Let me explain.
I sit on a board of directors. In late April I received an email from a fellow board member that he was let go due to "restructuring" in the department after roughly ten years duration with the company.
Ironic how an HR figure got the pink slip, isn't it?
That came as a rather surprise, although more shocking is how expendable the HR industry is in comparison to others. Aside from front-line employees, HR is the second-most expendable in terms of cost-savings (most organizations argue that HR is a cost itself, but that's the fault of our professional associations for not properly promoting the field otherwise, nor its intended direction. More on that later).
So in reality those in Business Services and Communications have nothing really to fear, except, of course, if you do tend to be in HR in either of those industries, then you just might.
Job insecurity is nothing new to the world. It's just known to be a little bit of a hibernator, that's all.
But how can the entire concept of job insecurity be quelled? Well, to make one feel un-insecure, you have to make one feel welcomed and appreciated.
If staff, particularly HR, do not want to be next on the chopping block, then something needs to be done in order to bolster their inherent value in the organization. Now, clearly, a business cannot operate without people, so that right there should be the most important point emphasized.
This may be hard to do in rigid, tall top-down structures where the BS gently trickles down from the top of the tower's toilet.
However, in some instances, especially where HR 3.0 is practiced, when staff are more flexible in applying themselves and utilizing their autonomy, then it can be ultimately communicated.
But if your organizations is the traditional top-down structure, here's what you can do to promote job solvency:
- Outline exactly what it is you do for the organization, both directly and indirectly. Take this time to point out the additional things you bring that are not essentially listed on your job description.
- Point out the skills you have that the company can capitalize on if given the chance to apply them to some aspect of your job (or be given greater autonomy in order to let those skills, and your performance, flourish)
- Don't be afraid. Everyone who has been in a similar situation knows that fear only escalates the problem; managers take note of this, making it easier to let you go. If you stand firm and prepare yourself accordingly, then they may have to think twice about approaching you with a pink piece of paper.
- Lastly, a termination is no big deal. A lot of us a trapped to our careers without ever having the chance to fully explore our capabilities. If you believe in fate, then perhaps you weren't meant to keep the job you're in. Maybe that hankering in the back of your mind of opening up your own flower shop, or becoming a freelance consultant is there for a reason: It's telling you to start making something of yourself outside of the ball-and-chain environments in our workplaces.
It's unfortunate that organizations resort to terminations, unaware that they are releasing vital corporate intellectual property and "trade" secrets into the open either to be used against them in direct competition or for another means.
If the company's HR function was strong enough and had a backbone, then head management would think twice about unloading their people.
But being fearful of impending termination is not helping you at all. Sure, you can be afraid - nothing is stopping you from feeling that way - but only if you want to increase the chances of being let go.
When management sees weakness, they pounce. Stay strong, and you'll survive.
Make yourself indispensable.
-Sean Mitchell, CHRP
Chief Human Resources Strategist
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Friday, May 1, 2009
HR's Job Analysis Encounter with Staff
Last night I walked into my part-time job and witnessed several people standing around with clipboards measuring each staff member's speed and actions while doing their job. A job analysis was being done.
From an HR point of view, this is sheer brilliance. From an employee's point of view, it's purely annoying.
With that said, the question came into my mind as I witnessed this was, "How exactly are HR's initiatives being viewed by the staff members who they are intended for?"
HR has always had this weird sense of glee in imposing initiatives upon various aspects of jobs. In this case, it was the covetted job analysis. In acting as a person who sits on both sides of the fence (non-HR as a part-timer, full HR practitioner by virtue), I couldn't help but be a little perturbed by what I was seeing.
Perhaps it's a personal preference, but having people stand there directly by me measuring my every move does not sit well at all; in fact, if I had the gall, I'd have taken my fancy time just to see how they'd react. Some people might not be bothered. That's fine, it's their prerogative. However, amidst the discreet sneers I received upon visiting my colleagues, it was of no surprise that they felt the entire Job Analysis scheme was more patronizing than helpful.
Which got me thinking about the entire scope of HR's purpose, or at least its philosophical nature behind these innocuous ambitions we as HR professions love to participate in.
If this is the way staff are reacting to something like this, imagine how they are reacting overall to HR in general. At face value, it seems like a very sound thing to do: measuring a person's performance in order to use it as a benchmark for future job incumbents and the measure of expected behaviour. Yet it would seem as though the application of such an activity while a regular employee is performing may come across as intrusive, imposing, and extremely tacky.
Maybe this is why HR's impression from the other side of the fence (you probably have gathered that it's not just the impression of management that counts but rather those of the larger stakeholders that do: the staff) is lacking in certain circumstances, as they are the ones who receive the brunt end of any of HR's or management's initiatives first hand.
So the lesson is quite simple: What HR thinks is a good idea in theory may not turn out to be an actual good idea in practicality unless an explanation is given why it's being done.
-Sean
From an HR point of view, this is sheer brilliance. From an employee's point of view, it's purely annoying.
With that said, the question came into my mind as I witnessed this was, "How exactly are HR's initiatives being viewed by the staff members who they are intended for?"
HR has always had this weird sense of glee in imposing initiatives upon various aspects of jobs. In this case, it was the covetted job analysis. In acting as a person who sits on both sides of the fence (non-HR as a part-timer, full HR practitioner by virtue), I couldn't help but be a little perturbed by what I was seeing.
Perhaps it's a personal preference, but having people stand there directly by me measuring my every move does not sit well at all; in fact, if I had the gall, I'd have taken my fancy time just to see how they'd react. Some people might not be bothered. That's fine, it's their prerogative. However, amidst the discreet sneers I received upon visiting my colleagues, it was of no surprise that they felt the entire Job Analysis scheme was more patronizing than helpful.
Which got me thinking about the entire scope of HR's purpose, or at least its philosophical nature behind these innocuous ambitions we as HR professions love to participate in.
If this is the way staff are reacting to something like this, imagine how they are reacting overall to HR in general. At face value, it seems like a very sound thing to do: measuring a person's performance in order to use it as a benchmark for future job incumbents and the measure of expected behaviour. Yet it would seem as though the application of such an activity while a regular employee is performing may come across as intrusive, imposing, and extremely tacky.
Maybe this is why HR's impression from the other side of the fence (you probably have gathered that it's not just the impression of management that counts but rather those of the larger stakeholders that do: the staff) is lacking in certain circumstances, as they are the ones who receive the brunt end of any of HR's or management's initiatives first hand.
So the lesson is quite simple: What HR thinks is a good idea in theory may not turn out to be an actual good idea in practicality unless an explanation is given why it's being done.
-Sean
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Loblaw on Dangerous Path
Renegade company strategy responsible for sharp downfall in profits. One solution is to cut staff. But the question really should be: Is their strategy working?
Reports of Loblaw profit drop from Thursday, Nov. 15th suggest there might be trouble in wonderland as the company's overall profit dropped roughly 40% due to "restructuring and other administrative costs".
Something smells like job cuts in the future.
Restructuring of the company over the last few years has lead it to allocate itself as a top contender to compete against Wal-Mart, reinventing their stores to offer an array of general merchandise and other non-grocery items that are common to Wal-Mart stores.
But has the idea really caught on? The news that profits are falling seems to suggest that this supposed "restructuring" is serving the company no good as it struggles to make itself "profitable" again (which, from what is evident, there is no financial trouble at all. Sales are up $9.14B from roughly $9.01B a year earlier. Obviously there's no issue with sales. Just with the people running the show it seems), as Galen G. Weston Jr. suggested, via "Project Simplify".
Project Simplify suggests alleviating the company of any obscure costs that may harm its ability to offer a strong profit and otherwise reason for potential and existing shareholders to invest in the company. In normal talk, it means cutting staff to save a dollar.
Project Simplify suggests cutting over 600 jobs (mostly at the office level but we all know it'll trickle down to the stores) to save a few dollars. Recent moves to "simplify" their distribution centres have lead to product shortages (especially during sales) and made it overall awkward for customers to purchase the products.
But if any major industry player knows, cutting staff is not the solution. Most likely these cuts will happen at the store level at some point which, as evident as it may seem, is having issues with its service levels and product availability. Even if there's no formal job cuts on the store level, surely there'll be an air as though there were because there won't be as many people on the floors as usualy.
Stores have control over the number of hours they distribute to departments for their staff to work. When the company doesn't do well, it cuts hours to save money. But how can you save money if there's less people to put the product on the shelves so that customers can actually purchase it?
Another issue that's affecting the stores is the aspect of association. When people think Loblaw, they see a store that specializes in food and food-related products. They don't associate Loblaw with big-screen TVs, DVD players, electronics, furniture or whatever else is available that one would normally find at a Zellers or Wal-Mart.
Just like with Wal-Mart, no one pictures it as being a vendor of fresh food like meat, produce, an active bakery and seafood. They see it as the place to buy clothes, household items for the kitchen, living room or bedroom. It seems as though these two are the lost twins from a mirror universe trying to "become one" that the other isn't.
If Loblaw wants to compete with Wal-Mart, it should focus on developing its food-based items to the point where it makes it difficult for customers to even think of going to Wal-Mart for baked goods or fresh salad. Why jeopardise your own forté by abandoning it for something you don't know much about nor have the appropriate experience to handle?
Companies such as Sobeys and Dominion have been eating away at Loblaw's marketshare for food by putting emphasis on their freshness and "specialties" towards food. They know that by focusing on food they'll be able to woo the customers away from Wal-Mart and, evidently, Loblaw instead of going ballistic on areas they have no formal experience in.
In all cases, one would have expected Zellers to go head-to-head with Wal-Mart given they're in the same market and offer the same array of general merchandise with a slightly small side for non-perishable food items.
If there's issues with the company's overall strategy, wouldn't it make sense to open the doors for the ones who [i]made[/i] the strategy? It seems obvious enough that, in any working environment, if someone is heading a project that [i]fails[/i], do they not blame the person who thought out, planned and executed the strategy in the first place?
Under that method of thinking, there needs to be a lot of explaining to do from the people who control the company's direction because cutting jobs and messing up the distribution channels is not the solution at all. If Loblaw wishes to put a dent in Wal-Mart's presence here in Canada, then they must:
-Bolster service levels. Put more people on the floor rather than restrict. The more customers receive better service and have product to purchase, the more they'll come back even if there's a better deal elsewhere.
-Open more distribution centres. Help a local economy by building a not-so-gigantic warehouse to service a smaller jurisdiction rather than relying on big-box warehousing with minimal distribution channels. While the location might be bigger, the trucks still have to go a longer distance to get the product to the stores.
-Focus on food. Loblaw started in food, it spent the last few decades learning and growing in this field and hasn't deviated from being Canada's leading supermarket (notice the word: supermarket. Not superstore) offering quality products such as the President's Choice & No Name brands. Directing energies onto these two lines plus reinforcing the quality of all other food services surely will put a dent into Wal-Mart's superstores.
Remember, people make a company successful. Severing them serves to do nothing except create greater problems in the future as customers will take it upon themselves to go to spend their money if they receive excellent service elsewhere.
It's a shame too, considering Loblaw offers a lot of quality food ideas and makes food culture have substance. President's Choice & No Name are among the highest-quality brands Canada has seen in a long time. It'd be a sad affair if Loblaw succumbs to itself and the competition under its current direction.
Then again, things happen for a reason.
Reports of Loblaw profit drop from Thursday, Nov. 15th suggest there might be trouble in wonderland as the company's overall profit dropped roughly 40% due to "restructuring and other administrative costs".
Something smells like job cuts in the future.
Restructuring of the company over the last few years has lead it to allocate itself as a top contender to compete against Wal-Mart, reinventing their stores to offer an array of general merchandise and other non-grocery items that are common to Wal-Mart stores.
But has the idea really caught on? The news that profits are falling seems to suggest that this supposed "restructuring" is serving the company no good as it struggles to make itself "profitable" again (which, from what is evident, there is no financial trouble at all. Sales are up $9.14B from roughly $9.01B a year earlier. Obviously there's no issue with sales. Just with the people running the show it seems), as Galen G. Weston Jr. suggested, via "Project Simplify".
Project Simplify suggests alleviating the company of any obscure costs that may harm its ability to offer a strong profit and otherwise reason for potential and existing shareholders to invest in the company. In normal talk, it means cutting staff to save a dollar.
Project Simplify suggests cutting over 600 jobs (mostly at the office level but we all know it'll trickle down to the stores) to save a few dollars. Recent moves to "simplify" their distribution centres have lead to product shortages (especially during sales) and made it overall awkward for customers to purchase the products.
But if any major industry player knows, cutting staff is not the solution. Most likely these cuts will happen at the store level at some point which, as evident as it may seem, is having issues with its service levels and product availability. Even if there's no formal job cuts on the store level, surely there'll be an air as though there were because there won't be as many people on the floors as usualy.
Stores have control over the number of hours they distribute to departments for their staff to work. When the company doesn't do well, it cuts hours to save money. But how can you save money if there's less people to put the product on the shelves so that customers can actually purchase it?
Another issue that's affecting the stores is the aspect of association. When people think Loblaw, they see a store that specializes in food and food-related products. They don't associate Loblaw with big-screen TVs, DVD players, electronics, furniture or whatever else is available that one would normally find at a Zellers or Wal-Mart.
Just like with Wal-Mart, no one pictures it as being a vendor of fresh food like meat, produce, an active bakery and seafood. They see it as the place to buy clothes, household items for the kitchen, living room or bedroom. It seems as though these two are the lost twins from a mirror universe trying to "become one" that the other isn't.
If Loblaw wants to compete with Wal-Mart, it should focus on developing its food-based items to the point where it makes it difficult for customers to even think of going to Wal-Mart for baked goods or fresh salad. Why jeopardise your own forté by abandoning it for something you don't know much about nor have the appropriate experience to handle?
Companies such as Sobeys and Dominion have been eating away at Loblaw's marketshare for food by putting emphasis on their freshness and "specialties" towards food. They know that by focusing on food they'll be able to woo the customers away from Wal-Mart and, evidently, Loblaw instead of going ballistic on areas they have no formal experience in.
In all cases, one would have expected Zellers to go head-to-head with Wal-Mart given they're in the same market and offer the same array of general merchandise with a slightly small side for non-perishable food items.
If there's issues with the company's overall strategy, wouldn't it make sense to open the doors for the ones who [i]made[/i] the strategy? It seems obvious enough that, in any working environment, if someone is heading a project that [i]fails[/i], do they not blame the person who thought out, planned and executed the strategy in the first place?
Under that method of thinking, there needs to be a lot of explaining to do from the people who control the company's direction because cutting jobs and messing up the distribution channels is not the solution at all. If Loblaw wishes to put a dent in Wal-Mart's presence here in Canada, then they must:
-Bolster service levels. Put more people on the floor rather than restrict. The more customers receive better service and have product to purchase, the more they'll come back even if there's a better deal elsewhere.
-Open more distribution centres. Help a local economy by building a not-so-gigantic warehouse to service a smaller jurisdiction rather than relying on big-box warehousing with minimal distribution channels. While the location might be bigger, the trucks still have to go a longer distance to get the product to the stores.
-Focus on food. Loblaw started in food, it spent the last few decades learning and growing in this field and hasn't deviated from being Canada's leading supermarket (notice the word: supermarket. Not superstore) offering quality products such as the President's Choice & No Name brands. Directing energies onto these two lines plus reinforcing the quality of all other food services surely will put a dent into Wal-Mart's superstores.
Remember, people make a company successful. Severing them serves to do nothing except create greater problems in the future as customers will take it upon themselves to go to spend their money if they receive excellent service elsewhere.
It's a shame too, considering Loblaw offers a lot of quality food ideas and makes food culture have substance. President's Choice & No Name are among the highest-quality brands Canada has seen in a long time. It'd be a sad affair if Loblaw succumbs to itself and the competition under its current direction.
Then again, things happen for a reason.
Friday, November 2, 2007
From Apathy to Empathy
If you want to find out exactly how well you will be treated as a customer, simply look at the way the employees are treated. Employees who appear to be complacent, cold and uncaring usually is the result of a management who is apathetic to the well-being of their staff. They think that less is better. Yet they fail to understand that the way you treat your employees is the exact same way you treat your customers. When you neglect your staff, you are neglecting your customers.
Can you recall exactly the last time you went to a store and saw a smiling cashier? Or waitstaff who were truly happy, or appeared to be empathetic to your troubled situation with a product and/or service?
I can surely bet you that you had to pause for a moment to think about that. Now let me alter the same question: Can you recall exactly the last time when you went to a store and the cashier didn't say hello or gave you an awkward look when you greeted them? Or when you asked waitstaff a question they took a few minutes to actually acknowledge your presence?
Ahh, now I bet you it only took a split second to think about that scenario. Truth is, people are more inclined to remember sour service and grumpy staff they encountered rather than the happy, exuberant and actually helpful staff they would like to have dealt with.
This is not a common occurence in today's modern working world. Wherever you go, no matter who you see on the street, the train or the subway, you'll always see people who work as part of their living. The look on their faces usually determines whether they are truly satisfied with their jobs or are merely doing it because they have to.
Employees are one of the most, if not THE most, important resource a company has. They're also the direct link to the customer: the people who help fuel the business and make it exist. Without customers, there would be no business. On a similar note, without employees, there would be no one to serve the customers and there certainly would be no business.
Yet why is it that a lot of business leaders, managers and presidents seem to forget this fact, and often times take the stance that the bottom line is more important than employee satisfaction? An apathetic stance over the treatment of their staff quickly reverberates onto the treatment of the customer.
Studies link employee satisfaction with customer satisfaction. Employees who are well-treated, have access to the right resources and have opportunities to be directly involved in strategic decision-making processes perform much higher. They'll appear more cheery; customers who approach or view a staff member who is singing, laughing or inherently enjoying what they do will more likely receive better service and remain a loyal customer to the company, regardless if there's a better deal elsewhere.
Apathy in the workplace has become a disease that many organizations are failing to recognize and properly vaccinate. The downside? It's costing them business more than they think it is.
But what exactly is apathy? Let's take a look.
Apathy
Apathy stems from lack of care, complacency or otherwise misinformation regarding a specific aspect of life or life outside of work. It's a belief that if it doesn't affect me, then why should I care?
An example of this would be companies who are experiencing high levels of growth. They're completely overtaken and encaptured by the influx of (more) money and finding ways to get even more tends to take precedence over every other thing, including the way employees are treated. Staff levels, supplies, wages and even certain parts of services are cut while staff are pushed to work more all for the sake of higher profits.
Existing staff begin to get the sentiment that with all these cuts, management just doesn't seem to care. Therefore the employees start to not care. Employees are seen as numbers rather than names. Managers who once said "thanks for all your help today!" begin to say "You didn't do enough!", ignoring their past cooperative dispositions (due to growing pressure on them to perform) and take their frustrations out on staff. These frustrations and negative attitudes towards staff then get taken out on customers. Employees greet customers with snarky attitudes and wind up not giving a rat's ass about their well-being or not.
Thus employees become apathetic towards customers and the company because of the apathetic attitude of management towards staff and the customers too.
The fact here is that apathetic companies are taking a huge risk by initiating this viewpoint. Eventually they'll
Empathy
Empathy is the ability to understand on an emotional level the burdens of someone's situation from their standpoint. It comes down to sharing the emotional fortitude between two or more people.
A company who feels empathetic to their staff, or, does not let the lure of money get in the way of the well-being of both staff and customers, will find themselves earning more business than those other businesses who take their staff - and customers - for granted.
Take for example the president of a tech firm who goes out of his way to meet with his staff, their names and even talk with them. Or the manager who gets to know his unit and gives them extra bonuses at the end of a working period thanks to their high performance or overcoming a sales goal. Incredible people, wouldn't you say? You'd be willing to work harder for them, wouldn't you?
What if either of those two people mentioned came to a funeral of one of their employees' family members? What if the emotional support for them meant more to them than making a few hundred thousand? While in the extreme end of things, any movement by the management of a company that shows their support, or goes out of their way to acknowledge and include staff in a big decision or by providing special resources needed to give employees an extra headstart on a new project is seen as a welcome sign that management does care for the staff and that they are seen as people rather than numbers.
These efforts then get passed down to customers. Employees who are engaged, enriched and appropriately appreciated have a higher morale and exude strong performance. This translates to greater service to the customer. Customers love dealing with happy and enriched employees, and they'll more than likely stay a loyal customer to your business even if there's a better deal elsewhere.
In the end, it all comes down to the way management handles growth and the temptation to make more money. While cuts may serve as a temporary gain, the long-term pain that follows is not worth any effort to sever ties with staff on any level.
A smart management knows that allowing employees more say, taking the time to talk to staff and get to know them as people rather than numbers will give them greater profitability and competitiveness in both the short- and long-run.
Can you recall exactly the last time you went to a store and saw a smiling cashier? Or waitstaff who were truly happy, or appeared to be empathetic to your troubled situation with a product and/or service?
I can surely bet you that you had to pause for a moment to think about that. Now let me alter the same question: Can you recall exactly the last time when you went to a store and the cashier didn't say hello or gave you an awkward look when you greeted them? Or when you asked waitstaff a question they took a few minutes to actually acknowledge your presence?
Ahh, now I bet you it only took a split second to think about that scenario. Truth is, people are more inclined to remember sour service and grumpy staff they encountered rather than the happy, exuberant and actually helpful staff they would like to have dealt with.
This is not a common occurence in today's modern working world. Wherever you go, no matter who you see on the street, the train or the subway, you'll always see people who work as part of their living. The look on their faces usually determines whether they are truly satisfied with their jobs or are merely doing it because they have to.
Employees are one of the most, if not THE most, important resource a company has. They're also the direct link to the customer: the people who help fuel the business and make it exist. Without customers, there would be no business. On a similar note, without employees, there would be no one to serve the customers and there certainly would be no business.
Yet why is it that a lot of business leaders, managers and presidents seem to forget this fact, and often times take the stance that the bottom line is more important than employee satisfaction? An apathetic stance over the treatment of their staff quickly reverberates onto the treatment of the customer.
Studies link employee satisfaction with customer satisfaction. Employees who are well-treated, have access to the right resources and have opportunities to be directly involved in strategic decision-making processes perform much higher. They'll appear more cheery; customers who approach or view a staff member who is singing, laughing or inherently enjoying what they do will more likely receive better service and remain a loyal customer to the company, regardless if there's a better deal elsewhere.
Apathy in the workplace has become a disease that many organizations are failing to recognize and properly vaccinate. The downside? It's costing them business more than they think it is.
But what exactly is apathy? Let's take a look.
Apathy
Apathy stems from lack of care, complacency or otherwise misinformation regarding a specific aspect of life or life outside of work. It's a belief that if it doesn't affect me, then why should I care?
An example of this would be companies who are experiencing high levels of growth. They're completely overtaken and encaptured by the influx of (more) money and finding ways to get even more tends to take precedence over every other thing, including the way employees are treated. Staff levels, supplies, wages and even certain parts of services are cut while staff are pushed to work more all for the sake of higher profits.
Existing staff begin to get the sentiment that with all these cuts, management just doesn't seem to care. Therefore the employees start to not care. Employees are seen as numbers rather than names. Managers who once said "thanks for all your help today!" begin to say "You didn't do enough!", ignoring their past cooperative dispositions (due to growing pressure on them to perform) and take their frustrations out on staff. These frustrations and negative attitudes towards staff then get taken out on customers. Employees greet customers with snarky attitudes and wind up not giving a rat's ass about their well-being or not.
Thus employees become apathetic towards customers and the company because of the apathetic attitude of management towards staff and the customers too.
The fact here is that apathetic companies are taking a huge risk by initiating this viewpoint. Eventually they'll
Empathy
Empathy is the ability to understand on an emotional level the burdens of someone's situation from their standpoint. It comes down to sharing the emotional fortitude between two or more people.
A company who feels empathetic to their staff, or, does not let the lure of money get in the way of the well-being of both staff and customers, will find themselves earning more business than those other businesses who take their staff - and customers - for granted.
Take for example the president of a tech firm who goes out of his way to meet with his staff, their names and even talk with them. Or the manager who gets to know his unit and gives them extra bonuses at the end of a working period thanks to their high performance or overcoming a sales goal. Incredible people, wouldn't you say? You'd be willing to work harder for them, wouldn't you?
What if either of those two people mentioned came to a funeral of one of their employees' family members? What if the emotional support for them meant more to them than making a few hundred thousand? While in the extreme end of things, any movement by the management of a company that shows their support, or goes out of their way to acknowledge and include staff in a big decision or by providing special resources needed to give employees an extra headstart on a new project is seen as a welcome sign that management does care for the staff and that they are seen as people rather than numbers.
These efforts then get passed down to customers. Employees who are engaged, enriched and appropriately appreciated have a higher morale and exude strong performance. This translates to greater service to the customer. Customers love dealing with happy and enriched employees, and they'll more than likely stay a loyal customer to your business even if there's a better deal elsewhere.
In the end, it all comes down to the way management handles growth and the temptation to make more money. While cuts may serve as a temporary gain, the long-term pain that follows is not worth any effort to sever ties with staff on any level.
A smart management knows that allowing employees more say, taking the time to talk to staff and get to know them as people rather than numbers will give them greater profitability and competitiveness in both the short- and long-run.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Today, we talk about "letting go."
A recent article I read discussed how evolving technology has shackled managers and executives to their jobs. Blackberries, laptops, and wireless internet have combined to allow a person to take the office with them anywhere they go. Unfortunately, what this often means it that weekends, vacations, and other down time is no longer downtime. This is obviously a problem for those in these situations, and while the benefits to the manager himself from disengaging is obvious, what about the impacts on the staff?
If you have been doing your job, then you have hired the right people and trained them properly - so let them do their job! There is no need to call them to check in every day on your vacation. Doing so ultimately serves no good except to undermine their confidence. Allow them to execute their tasks as they have been trained to do, let them grow in their confidence that they can do their job without babysat. People often act the way they are treated. If you treat someone with respect, they will treat you with respect. If you treat them like an adult, they will respond in kind. If you treat them like a kid, prepare for them to behave like children.
There is also the issue of interruptions. Every time you call and inquire for a status report, you break their concentration. The employee now has to stop and think about what needs to be reported. If you do this several times a day, you will begin to create the atmosphere that reporting what they are working on is more important than the work itself! If you are in industry where it is prudent you do get status reports even if you are away, an idea would be for your team to have a block of time during the day where they summarize what has transpired and forward it to you by email. This way, they are in a mindset where the information they give you will actually be clear and concise, and you can respond at your leisure, if necessary.
So learn to let go. Trust your employees to do their job. Trust that if they cannot handle something, they will find you themselves. Checking in constantly, by phone or by email, simply shows that you do not trust them, even if this is not your intent.
Now, if you do not trust your employees... that's another issue altogether.
~ Derek
Chief Economist
BlacktalonSolutions
A recent article I read discussed how evolving technology has shackled managers and executives to their jobs. Blackberries, laptops, and wireless internet have combined to allow a person to take the office with them anywhere they go. Unfortunately, what this often means it that weekends, vacations, and other down time is no longer downtime. This is obviously a problem for those in these situations, and while the benefits to the manager himself from disengaging is obvious, what about the impacts on the staff?
If you have been doing your job, then you have hired the right people and trained them properly - so let them do their job! There is no need to call them to check in every day on your vacation. Doing so ultimately serves no good except to undermine their confidence. Allow them to execute their tasks as they have been trained to do, let them grow in their confidence that they can do their job without babysat. People often act the way they are treated. If you treat someone with respect, they will treat you with respect. If you treat them like an adult, they will respond in kind. If you treat them like a kid, prepare for them to behave like children.
There is also the issue of interruptions. Every time you call and inquire for a status report, you break their concentration. The employee now has to stop and think about what needs to be reported. If you do this several times a day, you will begin to create the atmosphere that reporting what they are working on is more important than the work itself! If you are in industry where it is prudent you do get status reports even if you are away, an idea would be for your team to have a block of time during the day where they summarize what has transpired and forward it to you by email. This way, they are in a mindset where the information they give you will actually be clear and concise, and you can respond at your leisure, if necessary.
So learn to let go. Trust your employees to do their job. Trust that if they cannot handle something, they will find you themselves. Checking in constantly, by phone or by email, simply shows that you do not trust them, even if this is not your intent.
Now, if you do not trust your employees... that's another issue altogether.
~ Derek
Chief Economist
BlacktalonSolutions
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Effective Training and Tools
Usually when talking about investing in employees, the focus is clearly on the individual. We talk about things like courses, benefits and incentives. None of that is wrong, and you can be sure we will be discussing that, but today I want to talk about something that might not be considered as investing in your employees, but most certainly is.
We have all had bad experiences with call centres, tech support, or other customer service areas. Many times, you cannot help but become irritated or even angry at the seeming incompetence or lack of information the employees have. But is it really the employee's fault? It is hard to say, but various scenarios have given me the impression that the answer is no. For instance, I once called Tech Support when the company I was working had their internet fail. I had attempted various fixes myself, but to no avail. Upon calling, the tech and I went through a gamut of the regular fixes, none of which worked. She put me on hold eventually, and came back later to tell me the issue was a billing issue and that our account had been suspended. After being transferred to billing, it was discovered that there was apparently a bill for over four hundred dollars outstanding. A couple hours of phone calls later between the Accounts Payable and the ISP's customer service line, it was discovered that the invoice was actually paid, and was less than two weeks old - in other words, the ISP made a mistake.
Aside from the mistake, the situation begs a few questions:
It is speculation, but I suspect that a lack of training, in addition to an inadequate or malfunctioning database system is the culprit. Perhaps the tech support department simply does not get any billing information unless they query for it. In the case of the Billing Rep, perhaps she was not trained to look beyond the numbers and find out if an invoice was actually overdue, and simply assumed outstanding was overdue. Or else the data to allow her to look deeper was not even available at her terminal.
If your employee does not have the right tools to do his or her job, it is likely that frustrated customers will follow. This places unnecessary stress and frustration on the employee's part as well, being bound by the limits of their training and tools. By providing adequate training and tools, you ensure that your employees have the resources available to meet the needs of your client, but just as importantly, it allows them to perform more effectively and with confidence, while avoiding the stress of an irate customer. Additionally, it shows the employee that their job is an important one, one that is given adequate resources to perform and that their performance is important to the success to the firm.
Macaroni Grill is an international chain of Italian restaurants that has a heavy emphasis on proper training on their employees. Each employee is given a large folder containing training materials, and training and certification exams are given over the training period. Training includes working with and under the guidance of established employees. Having completed this training, each employee should be confident in their role and be able to perform efficiently, an important first step in investing in your employees.
~ Derek
We have all had bad experiences with call centres, tech support, or other customer service areas. Many times, you cannot help but become irritated or even angry at the seeming incompetence or lack of information the employees have. But is it really the employee's fault? It is hard to say, but various scenarios have given me the impression that the answer is no. For instance, I once called Tech Support when the company I was working had their internet fail. I had attempted various fixes myself, but to no avail. Upon calling, the tech and I went through a gamut of the regular fixes, none of which worked. She put me on hold eventually, and came back later to tell me the issue was a billing issue and that our account had been suspended. After being transferred to billing, it was discovered that there was apparently a bill for over four hundred dollars outstanding. A couple hours of phone calls later between the Accounts Payable and the ISP's customer service line, it was discovered that the invoice was actually paid, and was less than two weeks old - in other words, the ISP made a mistake.
Aside from the mistake, the situation begs a few questions:
- Why did the original tech not get an immediate flag that there was a billing issue when she put in the account information?
- Why was the Billing Rep not aware that her so-called outstanding bill was already paid?
- Why was the Billing Rep not aware that the invoice was less than two weeks old and not past the due date?
It is speculation, but I suspect that a lack of training, in addition to an inadequate or malfunctioning database system is the culprit. Perhaps the tech support department simply does not get any billing information unless they query for it. In the case of the Billing Rep, perhaps she was not trained to look beyond the numbers and find out if an invoice was actually overdue, and simply assumed outstanding was overdue. Or else the data to allow her to look deeper was not even available at her terminal.
If your employee does not have the right tools to do his or her job, it is likely that frustrated customers will follow. This places unnecessary stress and frustration on the employee's part as well, being bound by the limits of their training and tools. By providing adequate training and tools, you ensure that your employees have the resources available to meet the needs of your client, but just as importantly, it allows them to perform more effectively and with confidence, while avoiding the stress of an irate customer. Additionally, it shows the employee that their job is an important one, one that is given adequate resources to perform and that their performance is important to the success to the firm.
Macaroni Grill is an international chain of Italian restaurants that has a heavy emphasis on proper training on their employees. Each employee is given a large folder containing training materials, and training and certification exams are given over the training period. Training includes working with and under the guidance of established employees. Having completed this training, each employee should be confident in their role and be able to perform efficiently, an important first step in investing in your employees.
~ Derek
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Human Points of Contact
By way of introduction to the topics we will be discussing here, I'd like to link to the Brand Builder Blog's post here.
Posted early in July, I really wish I could take credit for writing it:
"Think back to an experience you've had recently (or not so recently) when you walked into a store or dealt with someone who was absolutely in love with either their job or the company they worked for. How was your perception of that company affected by their enthusiasm? (How likely were you after that experience to a) recommend that business to friends and peers, and b) do business with that company again?)
Now think back to your last experience with a bored, apathetic grocery store cashier, or with an unqualified telephone customer service rep, or with a passive-aggressive waitress who REALLY needs a vacation. How different might your perception of that company be? How likely is it that you will make that business your first choice? How likely is it that you will speak well of this business and recommend it to friends?"
All of us are consumers in one respect or another. We have all had our good experiences, as well as bad ones. One thing that bears mentioning which Olivier didn't is that we are more likely to tell people our bad experiences than our good ones. Depending on the severity of the experience, not only do you end up losing one customer's business, it is likely you will lose several potential ones. All the marketing budget in the world isn't going to do you any good if your staff's attitude and behavior chases them all away.
"All things being equal: Pricepoint, quality of the work or food or product, product performance, cool packaging, etc. - the quality of the experience surrounding human touch-points becomes primordial."This is exactly the type of thing we are advocating at Blacktalon Solutions. In the electronic age of ever increasing dependency on computers and automation, people are more important than ever. Every single point of contact a customer has with a business is vitally important, as it may be their first, and last. As a business owner, manager, or supervisor, you want to ensure that the customer comes away wanting to promote your company for you. It's an old adage, but it's still true that the best advertising is word of mouth.
So how do we get our employees to provide great customer service?
"Employee behavior can be radically impacted by their managers' positive or negative treatment.The key part here is "stand out." Doing what's "expected" or what everyone else is doing is not enough. Want your business to stand out when viewed against the competition? You have got to start on the inside by investing in your employees.
...
Think of ways of rewarding them, or of saying "thank you," or making them feel truly appreciated that kind of... well, stand out. Get them jazzed about working for you. Make them feel proud and excited and vibrant."
~ Derek
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
