Staff value: it's a big idea, even if it shouldn't be
It’s “Big Idea Month” here on Acronym, and I’m tackling one of the ideas that was submitted:
“What if associations abandoned the notion of hierarchy and every employee was valued equally?”
I’m splitting this question into two parts, because the idea of abandoning hierarchy is very different than the notion of valuing every employee equally. I’ll be tackling hierarchy on Monday, with a position that I, myself, was surprised I took.
Today, I’m going to push back on the term “equally,” which I think we should throw out for the purposes of this discussion. Workers, jobs, ideas, products—these things aren’t equally valuable and shouldn’t be treated that way. Now everything needs to be important in its own way; if it’s not important, don’t do it. The question I think we should ask is “What if… every employee was treated as valuable and with respect?”
My first question is this: is this even a big idea? Would anybody seriously challenge the notion that employees deserve to be treated as valuable and with respect?
I think the reality is that most people don’t work hard enough at being a strong manager or a strong leader, and I think it takes both to make employees feel valued and respected—so, yes, I think it is a big idea worth exploring.
Perhaps knocking down hierarchical structure is one way to make employees feel valued and respected. (Perhaps not, come back Monday for more.) I tend to think strong managers and strong leaders are more the answer. Here’s some common sense advice from Patricia Williams, SPHR, senior manager, HR outsourcing with RAFFA. It’s common sense, but all too rare.
“There are so many little ways and so many big ways to communicate to employees that they are valued,” she says. “And it’s critically important to take the time to do those things.
“By little things, I’m talking about managers giving constant feedback on performance. It doesn’t matter if it’s quote, positive or negative feedback—ongoing regular communication, even in casual conversation, will make employees feel valued.
“The larger things are things tied to compensation incentives, additional authority and responsibility, promotions. The opportunities for big things aren’t going to come around as often, that’s why the little things are so important—and they don’t happen often enough.”
When employees feel undervalued or disrespected, it’s a cultural problem, and Williams notes that culture starts at the top of the organization. If you truly value strong management and leadership skills, then you’ll continually work to instill them into the culture of your company. Things like employee surveys and focus groups—and even informal conversations—can help you determine how employees feel. But Williams cautions, “those things are great, great tools, but only if the employer uses them. Nothing is more disheartening for employees to feel like they gave earnest feedback only for it to be ignored.”
I’d add a final note: Don’t be helpless. If you feel undervalued or disrespected, it’s your duty as an employee to speak up. If you don’t you’re just contributing to the miserable culture of the organization. And I’m not saying you have to do it in an angry combative way. If there’s a history of those speaking up being smacked down, then be creative. Find new ways to raise the issues you’re having.
| | Permalink |
Comments
Egalitarian doesn't mean everyone is equally valued. It does mean everyone has equal rights and opportunities.
An egalitarian organization would recruit, compensate and promote based on performance rather than nepotism and favorites.
Posted by: David Gammel | December 4, 2009 5:04 PM
I like what Williams notes that culture starts at the top of the organization. I've worked at organizations where there was a culture of "Sit down, shut-up and do your work." It wasn't about being valued as an employee; it was about being a robot doing what I was told.
I've also worked at organizations where fresh ideas, different perspectives and diversity of opinion was welcomed and invited. Those were the places where I thrived.
I learned quickly that if I was smacked down for being creative, speaking out or even asking tough questions, I needed to find new employment.
Posted by: Jeff Hurt | December 7, 2009 10:32 AM
David - one small push back -- one person's nepotism and favorites is another person's performance-based decision. My post got too long, so I edited out a part where I said the place to start when talking about egalitarian, equality, and the like is to look in the mirror.
Jeff - I had written much the same thing in the post I put up today, where I say a hierarchical structure isn't a de facto problem--the people making up the hierarchy are a much more important factor. I'm not sure if you'd agree with that post, so if you think the link back to your comments was poorly placed, I'd love to hear your feedback.
Posted by: Scott Briscoe | December 7, 2009 1:41 PM
"one person's nepotism and favorites is another person's performance-based decision"--great point! One commonality I've seen in most of the bad performers I've had to manage is the inability to see or believe in their own performance problems, no matter what is said to them or what evidence they're shown. Which can contribute to a vicious circle of poor performers being angry they aren't being rewarded as well as the good performers, so their performance gets worse because they're angry and resentful, which leads to them not being rewarded as well as the good performers ...
Posted by: Lisa Junker | December 7, 2009 3:03 PM
In the old model of organizational management, the hierarchy disburses the authority necessary to get the job done.
If we look at the new paradigm of the hierarchy as people with different perspectives on the journey towards a successful outcome, it is important that every role in the organization share their perspective with another role with a different perspective.
If I am looking at things more strategically and there are those in the “trenches” implementing programs, my job is to share with them what I see from my perspective in the hovercraft – the shout out words of encouragement, to suggest course corrections since they are in the trenches and can’t see very far ahead – I can see obstacles and threats and warn then ahead of time. And likewise, they have the responsibility to tell me about the potholes on the ground, to ask for resources they might need, to get feedback on where they are going, and to understand how much leeway there is in the actions they can take to keep going in the direction of success. And when we get close to the goal, the leeway in the ability to zig and zag toward the goal gets narrower and narrower, and we may need more specific guidance and direction. When you fly the plane from east to west, there are lots of zigs and zags, but when you land, you better keep a much tighter rein on the zigging and zagging or you could make a critical error.
To the degree that all levels of the hierarchy have agreed to take on this mantra of embodying the picture of success in mind, spirit, heart and emotions, and welcome feedback about how we all deal with the movement (or lack thereof) towards the measures of success, that seems to be what dictates how much value each part of the hierarchy brings to the organization. Otherwise we are just engaged in the blame game!
Mark Samuel, CEO of IMPAQ consulting has written and spoken a lot about this – check out some of the articles he has written about this: http://www.impaqcorp.com/articles-08.html.
Posted by: Pegotty Cooper | December 8, 2009 8:28 PM
I like the ideas in your post and in the comments. It's odd that we're treating them as "big ideas" when they should be common sense or Mgmt 101. Another thought -- open up communication in every direction. Staff shouldn't be in the dark about what other departments are working on or what issues are occupying the leadership. Create opportunities for everyone to contribute ideas and give feedback. Create opportunities for staff to wrestle together on big ugly challenges.
If staff feels (and is) truly respected and valued for their work and potential, they're likely to be more invested in the success of the organization and more engaged and satisfied in their job. I think this holds true for any type of organization or business.
Posted by: Deirdre Reid | December 10, 2009 4:32 PM