Two Questions

There are two questions that can change how well our people perform, how we work as a team, how we manage, and how we keep compliant.  Here they are:

  1. How are things going?
  2. What can I do to help you?

Definitely not rocket science, but think about these.  If you manager came to you, and genuinely asked, “how are things going?” how would you respond?  Would you respond with some of your concerns or roadblocks, would you say “my mom has been really sick” or “I’m having a hard time getting through to my Assistant,” or would you say “I completed this project!” More likely than not, if you believed your manager really wanted to know, you’d share information about your or your team’s work performance.  You might also share information that affects that work performance.

If your manager asked what she could do to help you, would you give an honest response?  “Janelle in Accounting is holding this up, could you please chat with the CFO?”  “I would like to go to this conference so I can learn more about XYZ.”  “I might need your help filling in for me while I get my mom to the doctor.”  Or, “James has been saying weird things to me, could you help me figure out how to handle the situation?” If you know your manager is willing to help, would you ask for it?  Wouldn’t this help you?

The Harvard Business Review published an important article about questions and how they build emotional intelligence and most importantly, trust.  If all the research is correct that when employees trust their manager, their performance and engagement increase, why wouldn’t we ask managers to ask questions to build trust?  These questions are business related by identifying successes and concerns while offering to help.

So, how does this tie to compliance?  Well, that’s an easy connection – when would people trust us, they tell us when something isn’t going quite right.  They tell us when someone said something he shouldn’t have, when they need a reasonable accommodation, or when they fear a co-worker might be breaking the law. If we want to foster communication from employees on these issues, we need them to trust us.  So, let’s ask them the two questions more often.

One other thing – it’s easy to train managers to lead with these questions.  The hard part is getting those managers to live these questions, to turn them into real information-seeking questions.  Look for those managers who do it well, keep them, train them, promote them.

 

Photo by William Stitt on Unsplash

Tough Conversations

Question:  What do I do if during a conversation about poor performance the employee starts injecting that she’s being attacked or has been harassed?

A tough conversation is exactly that – tough.  For a lot of managers, tough conversations include performance discussions.  A March 2016 Harvard Business Review article explained that two-thirds of managers are uncomfortable communicating with employees. Two-thirds!  This means a couple of things:  (1) managers don’t know how to have tough conversations; and (2) managers are not prepared to have tough conversations.  HR can help with this!

It is a rare organization that does a great job training managers on how to manage.  Most don’t have the time or resources to devote to some of the “softer” skills about how to communicate with employees.  So, we send managers out into our organizations to fend for themselves, explain they should treat employees how they want to be treated, buy them a book on leadership, and hope for the best.  While I wish managers knew more, here’s what I’d like them to know about tough conversations:

Plan.  Prepare a script.  I recommend you draft an email with some bullet points or full script of what you need to convey to the employee.  If you don’t plan, it’s possible that the conversation will wander and you may miss the clear messaging you need to convey.

Consult.  Consult with HR, another manager, and/or your manager.  Ask them for feedback that you can use to improve your messaging or alter your wording to make the message even more clear or less emotional or harsh.

Take a beat.  Yes, performance should be addressed as soon as possible, but a discussion about performance should not happen in the heat of the moment or in anger.  Take a beat to breathe, plan, and consult.  It’s okay and even preferred where the manager’s own emotion could hinder the discussion.  Just don’t let the beat last longer than one business day.

Schedule.  This is a short, in-person meeting – usually less than 15 minutes.  There should not be a long list of things you need to cover.  Bogging it down with other subjects reduces the importance of the poor performance part of the discussion, so performance should be the only topic of the conversation from the manager’s perspective.  Plus, if you add other topics, the employee may not remember them.

Anticipate.  Usually, a manager knows if an employee will cry, become defensive, and/or angry.  Ponder in your planning what could happen.  Have tissues ready, let HR know you’re having the conversation, or plan to have someone with you if you have concerns about the employee’s reaction.  Select this person carefully – s/he should not be a co-worker of the employee.

Prepare for surprise.  Sometimes, a manager won’t be able to anticipate how the employee react.  In the question above, if the employee starts lodging complaints, the manager needs to know how to refocus the discussion.  Managers will need to hear a complaint, but then remind the employee that she’s there to talk about performance.  Managers should report the complaint immediately after the meeting so HR or management can take action.

Document.  Use your bullet points or script to recap with additions of how the meeting actually went.  The employee does not have to sign off on the documentation but should know of the document’s existence.

I often joke that managers have the word “manage” in their job title, so they’ve got to actually manage.  Most managers are great at saying “you’re doing great,” but it is those conversations where they have to confront an employee about poor performance or misconduct that trips them up.  For HR, this means we coach managers through these tough conversations.  Use these tips and reach out when you need help.

 

 

Photo by rawpixel on Unsplash

 

Die Annual Performance Review Die

Client calls.  Asks if they can fire Jerry for performance reasons.  The first (seriously, the very first) question I ask is, “what do Jerry’s performance reviews say?”  Experience has taught me that performance-related terminations usually have a homegrown enemy – the employee’s previous annual performance reviews.  What if we could eliminate the enemy by doing it better?

No one likes performance reviews.  Employees lose sleep the night before a review meeting.  Managers hate completing all the forms and fear having uncomfortable conversations.  HR turns into nagging mother-in-law types trying to track down managers to get all the forms turned in so that performance increases can be made.  No one likes this.

Performance reviews are rarely done well.  Most typically, the reviews are so vague they are meaningless.  They focus only on recent events and not performance over the entire year.  They are chockfull of bias.  Sometimes, a manager pretends he lives in Lake Wobegon where all the employees are above average.  Because we in HR are focused on handling the next fire, we don’t have time to push back on managers who do not do performance management well.  So, a poorly completed review gets stuck in a personnel file until I ask about it when the client wants to terminate.

Even when the termination is completely warranted and lawful, it’s the performance review that hurts.  The termination is going to have to get explained.  I’m confident that I am not the only employment attorney stuck explaining why an employee was terminated for bad performance just weeks after a positive review.  (We attorneys should form a secret society complete with a secret handshake.)  Our explanation is often couched in terms of a rapid performance decline as explained by a manager who “wanted to be nice” in the review but had observed poor performance that resulted in a lost customer, order, and so on.  The explanation by both the attorney and the manager is expensive for the company.

These are just a few of the reasons I want the annual performance review to die.  I’m not advocating for the end of performance management – quite to opposite.  I want more frequent, meaningful reviews for everyone.  Here’s my wishlist:

  • Conversation coaching.  Managers need to have difficult conversations with employees about performance.  Most managers, and particularly new managers, have not learned how to have these difficult conversations.  HR pros are conversation coaches, so we need to coach our managers on how to have these conversations.  Or, we need to get our managers the training and skills necessary.
  • Frequent discussions.  I love one-on-ones when they’re done right.  Brief meetings that discuss how projects are progressing that also discuss how the employee is doing are vital to successful businesses.  With this, managers get a sense of what roadblocks they can remove, and employees get critical feedback on how to do better.
  • Transparency.  People need to know how they’re doing.  Managers need to tell them.  Use examples.  Explain how things can improve.  Show.  If employees know where they stand, they may be able to understand why you’re firing them and not believe it is for some unlawful reason.
  • Recognize.  It isn’t just poor performance that needs to see the light of day.  Good performance does too.  Managers need to know how to champion those performers with potential as well as coaching those who just haven’t meet expectation quite yet.
  • Documents.  (Insert collective reader sigh here.)  Yes, feedback discussions should be documented.  I don’t care you document provided you document and I can get it later when we need it.  You can use the functionality of your HCM or you can have managers email themselves brief synopsis of each conversation.  With the conversation coaching, coach managers how to document as well, including how to remove references to protected class status, leave use, or other items that could get an organization in trouble.

Employees deserve to know how they are doing.  More importantly, they want to know how they are doing.  That’s what a great performance management process can do – get employees what information they need to do their jobs well so we can do our business well.

 

Photo by Tim Gouw on Unsplash

 

 

HR Tech’s Adverse Problem

While I totally loitered at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Conference (I was a presenter, just failed to register – oops), I’d thought a post on what we talked about yesterday and a bit about what’s happening at the University of Minnesota’s HR Tomorrow Conference today: adverse impact, why it’s important, and why you should care.

Adverse impact (known as “disparate impact” by the lawyers) is when groups of individuals described by a particular characteristic is negatively affected by an employer’s decision, selection tool, or policy when that decision, tool, or policy is neutral on its face or does not intend to actually have a negative impact.  For example, if an employer uses a psychological test that filters out African Americans, the test would have an adverse/disparate impact on African Americans.

The concept of disparate impact has been around for a long time.  The United States Supreme Court in Griggs v. Duke Power formally recognized the claim.  Since that time, the law has been debating many aspects of the claim, including what statistical models to use, does the doctrine apply if the rule intends to discriminate, how does impact different from treatment, and will the doctrine apply to all the HR technology out there.  While this post could go on-and-on about all of these questions, this last piece is really important for HR tech buyers, and the answer is probably.

We already know that lots of HR technology vendors, including the fancy-dancy stuff like artificial intelligence, machine learning, algorithms, etc., market their products as the only way to find the best candidates, identify problem employees, and make all your dreams come true.  When these technologies are used, their use could create a disparate impact.  How do we know?  Because we’ve already seen how these technologies discriminate outside the world of HR – see photo ID that classifies African Americans as gorillas, recidivism tools that increase prison terms for African Americans, etc., so it is highly likely that they could operate the same way when it comes to HR tech.  Arguably, HR tech has the potential to greatly impact because the decisions HR makes affect individual’s livelihood.

So what should we do about diverse impact?  While there are many, many things we need to do to limit the potential that the HR tech we use doesn’t discriminate, we should start with two things.  First, we have to know how the technology works and the data it uses to make recommendations.  This requires vendors to be open and honest with us, lose the marketing gloss, and really explain their products. Can they explain how the tech works?  Can they explain how the tech works on our organization’s data?  Could the data have bias baked in?  (The answer to this last one is probably yes, especially if we’re looking at hiring or performance data.  There’s just no escaping it.)  When vendors are transparent and honest about these issues, we can take more steps to mitigate any disparate impact the tech might have.

Second, we need to test and test and test to see if the tech creates the disparate impact.  Lawyers and data scientists talk about validation as the test.  For lawyers, validation means under the Uniform Guidelines for Employee Selection Procedures.  For data scientists, validation means how strong the correlations are statistically.  This definitional problem causes more debate and potential confusion.  So, we need to find vendors who understand, appreciate, and can articulate validation under both tests.  Because the HR tech world is a bit like the wild, wild west, it’s hard to find them. (Trust me, they’re out there.  I’ve probably met them or at least brow-beat them from a distance on this very issue.)

All that said, I want HR to understand and appreciate that these issues could exist and start playing an active part in fixing these issues.  While I’d love for everyone to trust each other, placing blind faith in a vendor is not in our organizations’ best interest.  Holding people accountable is one of the strengths in HR.  We should use it here too.

One final note, I love this stuff.  This tech is going to revolutionize how we do business.  I just want to do it in such a way that doesn’t create that much risk for our businesses.  Remember my pledge?

 

Photo by Patrick Lindenberg on Unsplash

Priorities, Priorities

On Tuesday, The New York Times published an article – complete with advice – about the office fridge.  Give employees only a specific amount of space in the refrigerator, ban certain foods, if an employee violates the rules, take fridge privileges away.  Seriously, this was the advice listed in the article.  Don’t we have bigger things to worry about?

Yes.  Yes, we do.  We’ve got a national harassment issue.  We have new laws.  We have super low unemployment so recruiting is tough.  Technology driving head-long into our work lives.  Employees are facing more challenges both at work and at home affecting their abilities to get their jobs done.  All of these issues are more important than the office refrigerator.

Not gonna lie, the focus on the fridge irks me.  We have bigger fish to fry.  Yet, it is human nature to find the “easier” issue that can be solved.  Fixing the fridge shows immediate results, whereas growing a positive culture takes significantly more time and isn’t easily measured.  I get it.

The same is true with Mitchell Hamline’s HR Compliance Certificate Program.  I’m honored to be an adjunct professor in the program and one of the authors of the case study used in the program.  My teaching partner, Ali McGinty, and I added a kegerator to our fictional workplace that is rife with compliance issues.  The workplace has no affirmative action program despite having a large Department of Defense contract, potential wage disparities, misclassification issues, recruitment issues, employment agreement issues, outsourcing problems, etc.  Yet, so many of students jump on the kegerator as the first problem they would solve.  I’m taking aback each time.  It surprises me as I assume that employers hire who they think are responsible adults, yet we want to remove alcohol every time we see it.  But when I look at all the other issues plaguing our fictional software company, I see that kegerator is easy and immediate.

I’ve got a challenge for you.  Write down the issues you want to tackle.  Ask some managers and some employees about what they think you should focus on.  Consider each issue carefully.  What will take you more time?  What will take more effort or resources?  How will you know if issues have been resolved?  Once you have a list, ask your leadership where they want you to spend your time.  Then, prioritize the list.  Here are some priorities I recommend – priorities more important than the fridge:

  • Renewing a commitment to effective training on the perils of harassment and discrimination
  • Revising employee handbooks that reflect new laws
  • Training managers on basic management skills like having difficult conversations with employees
  • Implementing effective performance management systems

HR guru (and my friend), Kelly Marinelli, recently tweeted that audacity is her word for 2018.  YES!  We need to have the audacity to take on the biggest challenges facing our organizations.  That probably does not include the office fridge.

 

Photo by Squared.one on Unsplash

 

Dear Email, a Love Letter

Dear Email,

You have gotten a bad rap. You get destroyed and end a political career.  You get tweeted in an effort to be transparent but instead potentially put a “there” in a “there’s no there, there” narrative.  You can drown some in notifications or serve as a diary for others.  While many hope your death is imminent, I remain devoted.  How do I love thee?  Let me count the ways.

  1. You always know when.  You have a handy-dandy date and time stamp that helps shed light on what the drafter was thinking at that precise moment in time.  This stamp is used to create the all-important timeline of events.
  2. You’re easy. With just a few clicks and pounds of my keyboard, you are put in a file that I can search and retrieve later when I need you again.
  3. You’re findable. Even when you are used to document something – as sent only to the drafter – you appear in both an inbox and a sent file folder.  This means you exist at least twice.  When an email is sent or forwarded to numerous people, you exist in even more file folders.  Even when you’re deleted, you go to a deleted file where someone has to take yet another step to truly delete you.  This means it is really hard to completely lose you and completely destroy you.  If I can figure out who got you, I can most likely find you using fancy forensics.
  4. You’re nearly everywhere. Fifty-four percent of the world has at least one email account. (I have three.)  Think about that.  Half of the planet has email.  This means that most understand and use email regularly.  We email our accountants, doctors, lawyers, and friends seeking advice and support.
  5. You’re important. Sometimes, you’re are silly.  Sometimes, you’re dumb.  A lot of the time, you’re amazing evidence.  Just like the stuff people say, the stuff that makes it into email is stunning.  This includes that time that someone quoted Sir Mix-A-Lot in an email to a co-worker, remarking that his “Anaconda don’t want none…”  Uff da, indeed.  (Note, great song, poor context.)
  6. You’re the best. When done right – without opinion or superfluous adjectives – you can save a case.  People believe you, and sometimes, they believe you more than they believe live testimony.

For all of these reasons, I just can’t quit you, email.  You remain one of my top recommendations for documenting performance, discipline, outlandish behavior, awkward conversations, and whatever else befalls HR departments.  I just hope you are done right and don’t need a lot of explaining.

Love, Kate

Featured image available at vecteezy.com

Email Dance