Quantcast
Subscribe!

 

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

E-mail Steve
This form does not yet contain any fields.
    Listen to internet radio with Steve Boese on Blog Talk Radio

    free counters

    Twitter Feed

    Entries in policy (14)

    Friday
    Feb102017

    Signs of the Corporate Death Spiral #5 : Have we learned nothing from Yahoo?

    Every once in a while, I still come across a story about a book or books being banned, or even burned, in a local area or school system. And every time I hear a story like that I make the same , bad joke - "They are burning books? Burning them? I mean, have we learned nothing from Footloose?"

    And every once in a while we come across stories of organizations that, in the spirit of the formerly great tech company Yahoo, pulling the corporate version of banning books, except is it about banning telework or remote work arrangements.  You probably caught the news that this week IBM's Chief Marketing Officer Michelle Peluso is effectively banning remote working arrangements for IBM's US marketing organization. Staffers will have to report to, (and in some cases relocate within commuting distance of), one of six US offices and (in her words), sit "Shoulder to shoulder" with their colleagues.

    IBM Marketing employees who are unable or unwilling to cease remote work arrangements and report to one of the six offices will be essentially tendering their resignation, (according to reports).

    Call me cynical, but my guess is Ms. Peluso herself will not have to suffer a 'forced' relocation to keep her job. I bet she already lives near enough one of the six offices. 

    But the larger point, like Yahoo, Comcast, or any other organization that resorts to the 'No more remote working for anyone' card is sending a signal that they are kind of out of ideas on how to generate better ideas.

    So they pull the 'More/Better ideas get generated when people are physically together' line and issue edicts like Ms. Peluso's and Yahoo's Marissa Mayer before that. And they are at least (partially) right. Sometimes great ideas do get generated when people are physically together.

    But also true is that great ideas get generated when people are walking their dog, are in the shower, or sometimes when they wake up in the middle of the night and scribble something down on a pad. Keith Richards dreamed the riff for 'Satisfaction', woke up a 4AM and played the lick into a tape recorder on the night stand. He didn't come up with the legendary tune as Agenda Item #6 in an official Rolling Stones band weekly status meeting.

    It seems like these kinds of blunt, non-differentiated, unscientific, (does IBM really know that working in the office will lead to better performance?), never work out in the long run.

    The best talent that feels negatively impacted by this policy change will find their way to greener pastures. And other folks will feel forced by their employer to make incredibly disruptive life changing decisions in order to keep their jobs.

    Ever have to hell an 11 year-old they have to relocate to a new city, new school, and make all new friends? Have fun with that conversation.

    I don't know what is going on at IBM in a big-picture sense. But I do know the various IBM folks I have dealt with and do work with now (some are in Marketing), are all dedicated, intelligent, considerate, and a real pleasure to work with.

    I hope things work out for them the way they want them to.

    Monday
    Jan302017

    On corporate reactions to current events

    I don't think I need to recap the series of political and policy events here in the USA over the last few days that have seemingly set thousands if not millions of folks (and almost EVERYONE) on Twitter afire.

    In the aftermath of a contested, contentious election, the first days of the administration have been, depending on your point of view, either a colossal and dangerous train wreck, or simply the expected result and consequences from a series of campaign promises/threats that have been acted upon.

    Since it doesn't matter to you what I think about these actions, and no matter what I think I would not change anyone's mind anyway (and I am not really interested in changing your mind. Make up your own mind), I'd rather make a couple of comments on what I have seen from the many 'corporate' responses to the events of the last few days.

    From what I can observe, there have been three major categories of 'corporate' response, (or non-response), to the recent Executive Orders from the new President.

    1. 'We' (meaning the corporation, even though I would suspect that the individual CEOs that are penning these responses are not really able to consult or poll all of their employees in just a day or two), are 100% in opposition to these policies, and we are actively working to see them overturned or ended. We are donating to the ACLU, providing free services to those affected (see Airbnb), and want everyone to know that we are NOT COOL with this. This has been the response from many high-profile companies, many of them from the tech space.

    2 'We' (again the corporation), have a culture of openness, inclusiveness, tolerance and fair treatment towards all. We support all our employees regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc.. We will extend direct services to our employees who may be impacted by these policy changes. This is sort of a toned down version of response 1, focusing more on their internal people and their families. It could be seen (and has been by some), as the more pragmatic CEO/corporate response, particularly for organizations that have business and dealings with the various arms of the Federal government. See Elon Musk/Tesla for a decent example of this approach.

    3. Nothing publicly announced at all. This is actually the majority of organizations I would think. For every big tech company CEO who has issued a statement or a Tweetstorm condemning the recent events and policy changes, there are 100 if not more organizations who are not commenting on it at all, or at least not publicly. There a a million reasons to do/say nothing publicly as a CEO/organization, and saying nothing does not mean necessarily that the CEO/organization does not object or rebuke these new policies.

    Wait, I just thought of a potential 4th response. The one where the CEO comes out openly and aggressively in support of the recent Executive Orders on immigration, placing him or herself in line with the new President an Administration. Note, a quick scan of headlines while drafting this post has resulted in zero examples of this actually happening. Doesn't mean it hasn't, but I have yet to find any CEO/organization, (at least a national brand), coming out in support of these policies.

    I know what you might be saying, that this particular policy change and set of orders are SO egregious, so un-American, so divisive that there is no way, no person, no CEO, no organization could support them. In fact, they are such an affront to what we like to think makes America a great country that it really is not controversial at all to come out strongly against them. And you might be right be that.

    Why think about these 'corporate' responses/stances to current event, particularly as and HR/Talent pro?

    Because once the CEO of the organization takes a public stand on issues as divisive as these, it sets down a kind of organizational culture marker that will be just about impossible to ignore or alter in the future. When the CEO comes down hard in opposition (or support) of these kinds of flash point debates, and if he/she commits organizational resources (time, money, products, services), on one side or another, the message gets pretty clear, pretty fast.

    And no matter what side of this (or the next big issue) that the CEO does come down on, (and one last reminder, I am not telling you what I think about this, or what you or your CEO should think), there is almost certainly going to be a cohort of stakeholders, (employees, customers, candidates), that are not going to see eye to eye with your CEO, and by extension, your organization.

    And that might be fine by you, as and HR/Talent leader, to have this element of the organization's DNA and culture laid bare such that employees and candidates that find themselves in stark opposition to the accepted (or at least stated) views will naturally begin to self-select out. They either will resign, will start looking for another job, or decide not to apply in the first place. Either way, you have maybe saved yourself some time in trying to answer the 'Is he/she a 'fit' for the job here' question.

    But that is not really the point, at least not the main point. The word 'divisive' implies that at least some people are on the other side of that divide from you. And I think we have to be very careful that we don't forget that. Because the next 'divisive' issue might not be so clear cut. It might not be so obvious which side your CEO and your organization should be on, (assuming both of those things matter). The next issue might have very cool-headed, rational, logical people on completely opposite sides. And should both of those kinds of people be welcome in your organization?

    Lastly, and this is I swear the end of this (too long) post, you also as an HR leader should probably ask yourself this question:

    Is a person's opinion on the current political debate of the day a valid, predictive, appropriate screening question for employment at your firm and whether they meet the criteria for the ever tricky idea of organizational 'fit'?

    Have a great week. Be good to each other. 

    Thursday
    Jul282016

    VACATION REWIND: The smart leader's approach to dress codes (and any other policy)

    NOTE: I am on vacation this week - please enjoy a replay of a piece from March of this year.

    ----------------------------------------------------------

     

    Happy Spring!

    It's Spring right, at least here in the USA, (and I suppose some other places as well, I was never all that great at geography). But with Spring comes the return (hopefully), of warmer weather and the shift to our 'summer' clothes - both for work and for not work.

    And the first time Gabe from accounting or Marcia in customer service turns up to work wearing some cargo shorts or worse, you or your organization's leaders might be tempted to send one of those beloved 'all employees' emails from HR that run down the ins and outs of the official dress code, as you know, we don't want to really treat folks like adults, at least not at work.

    But before you do send that email listing just what types of concert T-shirts are acceptable and which ones are not, I would encourage you to read this piece from ESPN.com, on how one organizational leader is wrestling with these same workplace policy issues as you are: Joe Maddon, (Chicago Cubs manager), on dress code: 'If you think you look hot, wear it.' 

    Get past the title for a second and read the whole piece. Here is a snippet to prod you along:

    Cubs manager Joe Maddon met with his “lead bulls” on Sunday to go over team rules as 11 players and their boss discussed everything from a dress code to kids in the clubhouse.

    “The biggest topic of discussion was shorts or not on the road,” Maddon said after the meeting.

    Maddon isn’t a stickler for a lot of written rules, instead preferring a common-sense approach. He believes players know the line not to cross. He used last year’s policies -- his first on the team -- as a guideline. They worked out pretty well.

    “You have like a force field, not an actual fence. Guys know if they go past a certain point you might get stung a little bit, but you don’t have to see the fence there,” Maddon explained. “I like that.”

    “Exercise common sense with all this stuff,” he said. “There are so much archaic stuff that baseball stands for. I’m here to manage the team, not make rules. I learned my lesson with that to not go nuts about it.

    Just about everything you need to know about dress codes or most other workplace rules right there. Treat folks like adults, let them know what is really important for the organization to be focusing on, (it isn't the dress code), and involve a larger group of leaders and influencers on the staff as you talk about expectations and whatever policies you have. Not only will they help you define the rules, they will likely help you self-enforce them as well.

    It is actually really simple. Simple enough for even the Cubs to figure out.

    Have a great day! 

    Thursday
    Jul072016

    Signs of the corporate death spiral #4 - Dress Codes AND Report to the Office

    I have hit 'too much attention being paid to dress codes' as well as 'no more working from home' both on the blog in the 'death spiral' series previously, so it should come as no surprise to regular readers that this week's announcement from Charter Communications caught this death spiral watcher's attention.

    Here's the important bits from the Fortune piece titled, 'No More Working From Home for Former Time Warner Cable Employees', then some FREE (and damn insightful) commentary from me.

    Here's what you need to know:

    Charter Communications closed on its acquisition of Time Warner Cable less than two months ago, but it’s already moving to replace a somewhat more relaxed corporate culture at the new unit.

    In a memo to employees at corporate locations, including the New York City office that used to be Time Warner’s headquarters, St. Louis-based Charter restricted a series of common practices at the acquired company. No more jeans in the office, no more working from home without high-level approval, and no more early departures on slow summer Fridays.

    The move echoes a controversy that broke out after Marissa Mayer took over as CEO at Yahoo in 2012 and banned working from home for most employees. A few other companies followed Mayer’s lead, but most workplace research shows that the practice enhances productivity.

    The new Charter memo also banned jeans in the workplace without approval from an executive vice president. “We will provide a harmonized workplace dress policy in the coming months, however unless approved by an EVP for a specific department and location, jeans are not deemed professional attire,” Marchand wrote. “In advance of the policy, if you are in doubt as to whether your attire is appropriate, better to not wear it.”

    Nice shot, Charter - the double whammy in one memo. 

    Quit it with the jeans you Time Warner hippies, and while you are at it, make sure you turn up to your assigned office as scheduled no matter how long you have been successfully working under alternative arrangements in the past. 

    There's a new sheriff in town, and his name is Charter, (and he is wearing a snappy blazer and tie AND at his desk gosh darn it at 8:30AM ON THE DOT).

    It is tiresome to still have to read and gripe about this kind of stuff in 2016. 

    You know what Time Warner and Charter need to be worrying about instread of dress codes and work from home policies that made sense in the 1970s?

    How about cord cutting? How about the next generation of consumers who don't want or need Cable TV?

    How about social networks like Facebook and Twitter increasingly moving into live video feeds of sports and entertainment, making the need for Cable TV packages even less necessary?

    How about the next competitive pressure coming down the road that has not even been invented yet?

    No, let's not worry about that, or at least let's take some time to make sure that we are CRYSTAL CLEAR that wearing jeans is no longer acceptable. And while we are at it, let's make sure all of our Chino wearing staff is at the office every day. 

    And let's make sure that everyone working here who has some better options begins to think about doing some 'cord cutting' of their own.

    Talking about dress codes? Issuing blanket 'No working from home' edicts?

    Surely signs of the corporate death spiral.

     

    Monday
    Mar212016

    The smart leader's approach to dress codes, (or any other policy)

    Happy Spring!

    It's Spring right, at least here in the USA, (and I suppose some other places as well, I was never all that great at geography). But with Spring comes the return (hopefully), of warmer weather and the shift to our 'summer' clothes - both for work and for not work.

    And the first time Gabe from accounting or Marcia in customer service turns up to work wearing some cargo shorts or worse, you or your organization's leaders might be tempted to send one of those beloved 'all employees' emails from HR that run down the ins and outs of the official dress code, as you know, we don't want to really treat folks like adults, at least not at work.

    But before you do send that email listing just what types of concert T-shirts are acceptable and which ones are not, I would encourage you to read this piece from ESPN.com, on how one organizational leader is wrestling with these same workplace policy issues as you are: Joe Maddon, (Chicago Cubs manager), on dress code: 'If you think you look hot, wear it.' 

    Get past the title for a second and read the whole piece. Here is a snippet to prod you along:

    Cubs manager Joe Maddon met with his “lead bulls” on Sunday to go over team rules as 11 players and their boss discussed everything from a dress code to kids in the clubhouse.

    “The biggest topic of discussion was shorts or not on the road,” Maddon said after the meeting.

    Maddon isn’t a stickler for a lot of written rules, instead preferring a common-sense approach. He believes players know the line not to cross. He used last year’s policies -- his first on the team -- as a guideline. They worked out pretty well.

    “You have like a force field, not an actual fence. Guys know if they go past a certain point you might get stung a little bit, but you don’t have to see the fence there,” Maddon explained. “I like that.”

    “Exercise common sense with all this stuff,” he said. “There are so much archaic stuff that baseball stands for. I’m here to manage the team, not make rules. I learned my lesson with that to not go nuts about it.

    Just about everything you need to know about dress codes or most other workplace rules right there. Treat folks like adults, let them know what is really important for the organization to be focusing on, (it isn't the dress code), and involve a larger group of leaders and influencers on the staff as you talk about expectations and whatever policies you have. Not only will they help you define the rules, they will likely help you self-enforce them as well.

    It is actually really simple. Simple enough for even the Cubs to figure out.

    Have a great week!