I have a friend who works for a Fortune 100 company. She delights in regaling the employee process of reporting concerns to the company. On each employee computer is a button that links to the employee to a pop-up window where they can easily type in a concern. The database is managed by a group of human resource employees dedicated to responding to all logged in concerns.
Initially, my thought was that the company took this very seriously and apparently was very dedicated to not only making employees feel heard, but also in making a difference e in the work place. Before I got too impressed, my friend tells of a couple of scenarios where this ‘button’ is used.
I won’t bore you with all the examples, but here’s my favorite.
Employee files a complaint that the managers are too close and the employee feels as if the manager is watching them. Anyone who has managed has heard this at least once in their career, if not annually. Typically, we respond with empathy, a few reflective listening words and try to be more sensitive to our presence. This company responds by having all the managers’ move to the opposite side of the floor.
What? Do you mean HR made you move away from your staff because someone complained you were too close?
Yes.
We spoke for thirty minutes. In that time it didn’t take me long to realize that the employees were in charge.
I’m all for employee empowerment. I attended countless seminars in the late 90’s and early 2000’s on how to get employees involved and feel a part of the organization. Now we call it ‘being engaged’. Regardless of the definition, the intention is the same: get your employees involved in the work they do and you’ll increase your results and employee retention.
But there’s a fine line between involved and taking over. This is the equivalent of a parent never saying no to a child because it stymies the child’s creativity and negatively impacts their self-esteem. What happens to those children as they enter adulthood? The same thing that happens to a company that allows its employees to drive policies: a weak foundation.
There has to be a separation between giving employees what they want and keeping structure in place. It’s not bad to say no to an employee. A person’s desires change frequently. Apparently, as with the case with my friend’s company, desires change with the click of a button. Moving managers to the other end of the floor and away from employees to make them feel comfortable is insane. There is not value-add in this decision.
Instead of catering to the whims of the employees, a company can start conversations with its employees, open dialogues that lead to an understanding of the company’s needs and their individual needs.
What happened to those managers who moved to the other side of the department? A few months later the employees complained that the managers were too far away and they couldn’t find them when they needed help. I anticipate another move for these managers.
Hope they didn’t unpack their boxes.
