Quantum Culture: The Physics of the Energized Workplace

I recently arbitrated a dispute involving a Teamsters bargaining unit and a large non-profit organization in the State of Washington. Their labor history, in my view, might best be characterized as what not to do. It was marked with extensive conflict, including a recent strike by the employees that lasted almost four months. As I listened to the testimony of various witnesses, I found myself repeatedly attempting to understand why there was so much negativity in the workforce. It is easy to arrive at the conclusion that the negativity is a product of having a labor union represent the bargaining unit employees, but that analysis seems superficial to me since there are numerous examples of labor management relationships which support a positive workplace environment.

That arbitration hearing influenced my decision to write about negative and positive energy in the workplace. While an employee work stoppage is an obvious example of negative energy at work, it does not take a strike to create negative energy. The fact is that negativity in the workplace is one of the most frequent problems that I find myself discussing with clients. Malicious rumors, gossip and other similar behaviors are all too frequently present. Moreover, I was further influenced to write on this topic by the comment I heard recently from a well known consultant. He believes that negativity in the workplace is the number one problem facing American business.

The following points of analysis are offered with the hope that one or more of them is helpful to those of you receiving this e-zine.

1. Margaret Wheatley’s wonderful book, Leadership and the New Science, applies principles of quantum physics to the process of leadership. Since quantum physics is all about the study of energy, she has a lot to say about how energy can be directed in an organization. She offers the proposition that managing employees can be rethought of in terms of managing the energy of employees. From this view, management is all about helping employees align their energies towards the twin goals of 1) positively supporting each other and 2) task accomplishment. While easier said then done, I believe that recognizing these goals is an important first step towards significant change.
   
   

2. Also, notice the subtle but important distinction between working to stop malicious gossip or rumors and the goal of building positive energy towards specific goals. My experience has been that when you present a positive task to a workgroup, particularly the task of focusing their energies on helping to build a more positive workplace, their efforts towards this goal pushes aside the ongoing negativity. The challenge for the organization, therefore, is to help supervisors and managers develop the skill set necessary to keep their workgroup’s attention focused on the positive goal. Most important, focusing a group’s energy on what is wanted is usually more productive than trying to focus that energy on what you want to get rid of.
   
   

3. I am very impressed with a new book that I have just received (2003 copyright) by Jim Loehr and Tony Schwartz, The Power of Full Engagement. The authors take the position that “managing energy, not time, is the key to high performance and personal renewal.” The following is found on page 5:
   
   

   “The number of hours in a day is fixed, but the quantity and quality of energy available to us is not. It is our most precious resource. The more we take responsibility for the energy we bring to the world, the more empowered and productive we become. The more we blame others or external circumstances, the more negative and compromised our energy is likely to be.”
   

   
   I found this book to have a wealth of good information about energy management in the workplace.
   
   

4. Loehr and Schwartz first emphasize that, just like an athlete trains to become stronger, an organization can train to have greater amounts of positive energy present in the workplace.
   
   

5. Loehr and Schwartz also believe that we increase the capacity for high energy output when employees take on a significant task, work hard at it and then have a period of time for recovery. In their view, employees in an organization gradually wear down when they are asked to output continuously at a high level. On the other hand, work continuously performed at a slower, steady pace never stretches employees and thus also does not work to build greater energy. I believe that the concept of cycles of exertion followed by recovery needs to be explored and implemented.
   
   

6. A critical point is that it is hard to focus de-energized employees on a positive task. Thus, having employees who bring high levels of energy to the workplace is a first step towards creating and aligning positive energies.

Obviously, I find the topic of building, maintaining and focusing positive energy in the workplace to be highly important. Therefore, I intend to revisit it next month with the thought of providing some useful “how-tos.”

Continue reading...

Managing the Dysfunctional Employee

I was recently asked to make a presentation at an annual conference for public sector human resource management professionals. Specifically, I was asked to speak on the topic of Managing the Dysfunctional Employee. I thought it might be useful to those of you who receive this e-zine for me to repeat some of the key points made in that presentation. Obviously, the first place to start is with the point that dysfunction is a broad, difficult and ambiguous topic. That being said, I offer the following points.

1. As an arbitrator, I have always made a distinction between a discipline and/or a discharge case involving a matter of misconduct as opposed to unacceptable performance. One of the practical distinctions between the two is the extent to which the employer expects an immediate behavior change versus a situation where the employee is expected to grow into the ability to perform. For example, if you have an employee that you can prove is stealing from you or sleeping on the job, it is not likely that you will tell the employee that he or she has sixty days to stop stealing or stop sleeping on the job. To put the matter differently, with misconduct the employer has the right to insist on an immediate change in behavior and, if such a change is not forthcoming, to move to discipline including discharge. On the other hand, if the quality or timeliness of an employee’s work is substandard, it is reasonable to expect that the employer will provide a period of time and some assistance to help the employee develop the ability to meet performance requirements. Growing new skills or attitudes clearly takes time.
   
   
2. Most often, the “dysfunctional employee” is a performance problem, not a matter of misconduct. If the employee’s inappropriate behavior was a matter of misconduct, the situation would be clearer and more easily dealt with. A path could be started that would quickly lead to discharge if the employee failed to stop the undesired behavior. Because it is a performance problem, however, what most employers find themselves doing is attempting to coach the employee to bring about a change in performance, usually with little success (otherwise we probably would not use the word “dysfunctional”)
   
   
3. How then do you work with the employee to make a change? I always recommend starting with a positive approach and then moving to formal discipline, if that is necessary. One such approach, that I believe is often overlooked, is to focus on the culture of the employee’s work team. Is it a strong, positive culture that may be able, with the right processes, to reach out and draw the employee into compliance? This idea is the main focus of a new workbook that Martie Geltz and I have recently released called Supervisor’s Guide to Cultivating a Positive Culture (available at 800-807-6544).
   
   
4. Unfortunately, what marks or distinguishes a dysfunctional employee is that he or she is often resistant to positive performance change processes. Moreover, there is a negotiating principle that I find important when addressing the issue of a dysfunctional employee: offers of reasonableness, kindness and cooperation are often viewed as a weakness to be exploited or viewed as a subterfuge for an underlying hostile intent. Thus offers of collaboration are met with increased demands or hostility. As a result, any attempt to be conciliatory is useless unless it is framed within a context of what the employer will not do or accept – you must be able to say “no” with authority.
   
   
5. Since employee dysfunction is often exhibited through a game that is played with the employer, I believe that it is absolutely essential for each employer’s handbook to clearly enunciate positive expectations. For example, employees should be expected to interact positively with other employees, to be productive, to work in a manner that encourages productiveness on the part of other employees and to demonstrate concern about the safety and well-being of individuals that are being provided services. Check your employee handbook, your employee orientation program and your training programs to make sure that the emphasis on affirmative responsibilities is in balance with the emphasis on specific behaviors that are prohibited. Yes, you can terminate the employment of a highly productive employee who makes life miserable for other employees. You need to make sure, however, that employees cannot hide behind the phrase, “I do my job.”
   
   
6. One last thought, as depressing as it sometimes is and as much as you might want to reach out and provide assistance to an employee in distress, years of arbitrating cases and listening to expert testimony leads me to the conclusion that for some the only real change occurs when they hit rock bottom. The termination of employment is often one necessary step towards hitting rock bottom. Moreover, the failure to timely implement the termination often simply prolongs the issue and makes life miserable for management and fellow employees.

Continue reading...

Thoughts on Issues of Performance, Attendance and the ADA

1. As promised in the first edition of the Williams’ HR Insights e-zine, I am providing additional information into the implementation of a no-fault attendance policy. If you are contemplating a no-fault policy, give careful consideration to the following points:

-- A fault based attendance program rests heavily on the requirement that employees provide a doctor’s statement for absences related to an illness or accident. A bona fide doctor’s statement justifies the employee’s absence, and bars the employer from taking action against the employee. A no-fault policy does not require a doctor’s slip for any absence. I like this fact because doctors will always provide a statement, even if it says no more than, “patient X visited me on X day and reported that he had a sore throat.” Notice that this statement does not indicate whether or not the employee could have worked. In fact, as most of you know, it often seems that a doctor’s statement is one element of an elaborate game that is being played out between the employer and the employee. The no-fault policy is an attempt to get away from this game, and simply recognize that the employee was hired because there is work to do. When an employee is not at work, the work is not being done. While there is some latitude a reasonable employer must give for an illness and/or other personal problems, the employee’s good attendance is an essential tenet of the job.

-- Please note that the exception to the first bullet involves an absence that is covered under FMLA. Any absence covered by FMLA cannot be assigned an attendance point under the no-fault attendance program. Thus, a no-fault attendance policy would need to be constructed that clearly differentiates those absences that would produce an attendance point from those that would not. A no-fault attendance policy, as explained in the July e-zine, is usually based on a point system where the accumulation of a certain number of attendance points will lead to discharge. Examples of what might trigger an attendance point include any absence (multiple consecutive days of absences are typically viewed as one absence or one point), a tardiness of 45 or more minutes, a no call/no show, funeral leave and time taken off during the day for personal reasons. Please note that a one-day absence that is a no call/no show would receive two attendance points.

-- One of the important elements of a no-fault attendance policy is that very legitimate absences (funeral leave) are given an attendance point – the employee is absent. Thus, while your policies may provide for funeral leave (paid or unpaid) the absence would still create an attendance point. Under a well-crafted no-fault policy, however, employees with good attendance will quickly remove any attendance points that have been placed on his or her record.

2. While we are on the subject of employee attendance problems, I ran across a recent court decision (State of Washington) where the employer was held liable for the taunting of an employee by fellow employees over absences related to an on-the-job injury. The employees were upset because they felt the injury was faked and resented the fact that the employer had provided light duty alternative work. As a result, a group of employees made life miserable for the injured employee. This cost the employer a great deal of money, even though the employees were told to “knock it off” by their supervisor on a number of occasions.

3. There are two legal concepts that are of substantial importance as applied to state and federal law. The first is the word “pretext.” Whenever the court evaluates an employee’s claim under statutes, such as ADEA, ADA and OSHA, the critical question asked by the court is whether the reasons given by the employer for discipline or discharge are simply a pretext provided to justify an illegal action under the statute. Thus, the evidence provided by the employer, in order to satisfy the court’s concern over pretext, must by solid and well-documented.

4. The other term of significance is “essential functions.” The problem with the term “essential functions” is its slippery nature. Employers are not required to change an essential function of a position to accommodate an employee. An essential function is a job duty that is fundamental, basic, necessary and indispensable to filling a particular position; as opposed to marginal duty divorced from the essence or substance of the job. Also note that an essential function includes both the expected conduct for the position and the actual service that is required from the employee.

A recent Nevada case, upheld by the Appeals Court, provides insight into the importance of the “essential functions” concept. The Appeals Court affirmed that an employee is not entitled to reasonable accommodation, under the ADA, when he or she is unable to perform the essential functions of the job. The protections of the ADA apply only when an employee with a bona fide disability is able to perform the essential functions of the positions. The employer must be careful with this concept, however, because if the disability is the result of a workplace injury, the employee may be entitled to reasonable accommodations under state disability statutes.

Continue reading...