Aholes, Shirkers and Performance: a Draft People Principles Policy
Several posts here have explored the relationship between enterprise performance and the human environment. The argument is that the better people are treated the better they will perform for the company by taking care of customers and its' interests. Now my biases in this case are shaped by both my management experience and my earliest working experience at Fedex who's motto was/is "People, Service, Profit". And they backed it up - the three policy manuals around which the company governed itself were the People, Service and Profit manuals. Compensation and promotability were determined by effectiveness in people management and they've found since their beginnings that people are the key to service which is their whole reason for existence (& pricing and profit : ).
That said, at the same time, people are definitely not all perfect. In fact my experience has been that out of any ten person team normally assembled you're lucky to get one star solid performer, three decent ones and a lot of folks who'd like to be more than they work or are capable of. And further everybody's in denial about this from both sides - both bad bosses and bad employees. With all due respect to HR's due processes they aren't taken very seriously in general.
But, I'm more convinced than ever that good HR is a mandantory strategic performance requirement and excellent HR is a competitive differentiator.
UPDATE (8/1): Seth Godin has two interesting post on toxicities among bosses and employees that are short, sweet and to the point. To which I'd add, my point here, toxic behavior is not rational (this is a family blog so scruples prevent putting it more strongly).
Bob Sutton over at his blog has covered his new book "The No Asshole Rule" and triggered an avalanched of heartfelt outpourings on bad treatment. Some of the stories of aholes run amok and bad people policy are....what ? Startling, heartrending, make you shake your head ? Well my triggerring was to start wondering about the rationality of these choices and on several lines of inquiry I'd argue that we can make a very strong case (see the three prior posts cited below for different perspectives on total enterprise performance and people management). Let me put that more directly and strongly.
- Bad people policy makes no rational sense and damages corporate performance in the short- and long-runs.
- Bad people policy has a measurable impact on both enterprise value and internal efficiency and effectiveness. It is NOT judgemental though judgement as to consequences is required.
- In other words the costs and benefits of strategic investment in investing in people can be thought of in the same way as we do other strategic choices.
So how to bridge the gap between delusions and realities ? Well, it's not entirely clear that I've got an answer but being on a plane and in that wonderful state of sleep-deprivation, crampedness and caffeine over-dosing where sometimes the gods speak to you what they suggested was this little manifesto. It's based on the principle of running a company for adults. See what you think:
Six Principles of People Management (draft manifesto):
- You are an adult, worthy of respect, who has every right to be treated as such and so expect.
- But we also expect you to be and act as an adult who takes responsiblity for their actions and deals with the good and bad times equally well.
- You are entitle to a fair day's pay for an honest day's work
- We expect you, in fair exchange, to put the organizations long-term best interests first in your priorities but not to the unbalanced exclusion of others in your life.
- The virtuous circle of priorities is Customer (take care of them), Organization (which results in satisfaction and value) and You (so the Organization will take care of you).
- We will walk this walk together - not just talk about it while we walk to the bank and you walk to the door.
- Good work done well is worth doing and it's fun (or least satisfying). We intend to do good and do well and have fun as best we can manage.
Taken all together the organization will perform better in the short- and long-runs. Which implies the pie (Pi as in profits) will be bigger for all of us even if somebody's slice changes relative size.
The prior posts that make the case are:
and Bob's blog is here and one of my favorite posts dead on this is "Waste of Talent" .
Comments
Gill Corkindale has posted a related item, "The Fundamental Religion of the Bottom Line," chronicling the demise of human relationships in the workplace. See http://discussionleader.hbsp.com/corkindale/2007/07/the_fundamental_religion_of_th.html
Gill's post and yours have caused me to quickly reflect back on my experiences in the world of work -- from working for a sole proprietor in the home building business to one of the world's largest global organizations. It mirrors the words of the two of you.
Perhaps this general trend towards making people into things to be treating as costs to be minimized is inevitable, even if it is not pervasive.
Gill's financial services company was beginning to see the downside implications of its strategy. Can it recover? The issue is, I think, the time required for recovery and whether the owners allow that time.
Can enlightened HT policy be correlated with performance? That seems to me to be a difficult matter.
Jim
Posted by: James Drogan | August 2, 2007 07:09 AM