Maybe the Greeks had it right. Sometimes the best powers are the ones used sparingly, covertly, but effectively, and always boldly. Perhaps the New Year will give you the reason you need to start acting more like Zeus and less like Bruce (Willis, to be exact).
Try to find a big-revenue action movie starring Bruce Willis in the lead, where he is asked to simply watch the activities instead of always initiating some type of mega-change. There isn’t such an example on any celluloid or digital print, because Bruce takes charge and people know it from the first frame.
But how about if we consider that in the real world, business leaders can take charge from the edges of the issue, not the center of it. Zeus, known to the ancient Greeks as the “king of the gods,” is usually depicted in two roles: either tossing down thunder and lighting from the skies, or sitting on his throne, observing events on earth below. One portrayal suggests action; the other reflection.
Being a boss means that you hold power over your people. Some of this power is actual – you can hire, fire, and promote them – and some is symbolic – we use titles in business to denote rank, just like in politics or the military.
Actual power means that you control the activities of employees and you have “economic power” over their tasks, pay, hours, and work locations. Symbolic power means they (should) look to you for leadership, in good times and in bad, based on your experience, education, job knowledge, and ability to think creatively and into the future.
Of course, having a title does not automatically mean people will respect you. Having plenty of power and no respect from the employees rarely leads to positive outcomes, especially over the long term (unless you count low morale, retention issues, and vicious behind-your-back gossip as positive outcomes).
Some business owners, managers, and supervisors attempt to demonstrate their leadership by being too involved with the daily operations of their departments or facilities. They work in the business instead of on the business. The difference is crystalline: the former is caught up in the minutiae of day-to-day activities (otherwise known as “firefighting”); the latter is more focused on the strategic direction of the team, department, or organization.
Getting stuck in the tall grass of endless details is not only tiring personally, it’s tiring professionally. In other words, you go home tired and your employees get weary of their boss always riding to the rescue, trying to fix what isn’t really broken, or obsessing over small matters (the background color in draft versions of PowerPoint slides), instead of presiding over big ones.
Take a simple staff meeting for example, and start by asking yourself, “WWZD?” (What Would Zeus Do?) In most cases, he would sit back in his chair, stroke his beard (metaphorically, of course, since having facial hair or being a male is not required to match the model), and watch the process.
When the group gets stuck on some issue, as they invariably do, he would wait to see if they can solve it themselves. If not, then it’s time for a pithy suggestion, perhaps an illustrating story, or an idea that is unusual.
When this unsticks the group, Zeus can lean back again and repeat the process, watching and waiting for the opportunity (if necessary) to provide another useful solution that supports the team by building upon what they have already discussed or attempted.
After the third or fourth pass, where Zeus has said nothing other than the occasional comment that unclogs the creative or operational pipeline, the group members start to turn, almost intuitively, to their male or female Zeuses, to look forward to the forthcoming idea. This is covert leadership at its finest, where the leader knows he or she is respected for his or her ideas as opposed to mere titles on business cards.
Covert leaders don’t assume their people will follow them; they demonstrate why their people can follow them by being present at the meeting, but not ruling it via the thunderbolt. Your people already know you’re in charge of the business, department, team, or them. There is no need to remind them by micro-managing every meeting into an exercise in reverse delegation chaos. “If I want something done right, I’ll do it myself” was not in Zeus’ vocabulary and it shouldn’t be part of your leadership approach either.
The best leaders are the ones who operate covertly, in stealth, and by letting their people function, solve problems single-handedly, or as part of the natural group back-and-forth team processes. You can lead from a distance, and all while being in the same room.
Dr. Steve Albrecht, PHR, CPP, is a San Diego-based consultant and author on HR and security issues. He can be reached at drsteve@drstevealbrecht.com.
Monday, December 20, 2010
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Using a Coaching Script for Employee Hygiene Problems
Using a Coaching Script for Employee Hygiene Problems
There are two times where coaching is a useful intervention tool for supervisors: to address workplace performance issues or to address workplace behavioral issues.
Coaching is useful to help supervisors talk about four key areas within these performance or behavior realms: violation of policies and procedures (harassment, theft, substance abuse, threats, etc.); work performance (quality, missing deadlines, etc.); attendance (coming in late, leaving early, misusing breaks and lunches); and attitude (sarcasm, rudeness, or disrespect to supervisors, co-workers, or customers).
The question that arises with some supervisors is, “When do I have the right to discuss an off-the-job issue with an employee?’’
The answer is, “When it impacts the business of the department in a negative way.”
While we don’t want to pry into employees’ personal lives, we do have the right, duty, and obligation as supervisors to address issues or behaviors that make it hard for all employees to serve customers, work with others, or do their jobs.
In their book Crucial Conversations, Kerry Patterson and three co-authors discuss how to talk about tough topics with employees. They define “crucial conversations” as those where “opinions vary, stakes are high, and emotions run strong.”
This idea is one that can help both parties to see that the important discussion is not about a personality conflict, retaliation, passive-aggressive behavior, avoidance, or emotions. Rather, the focus centers on what the employee does or doesn’t do, should do differently, and how the issue at hand impacts the business in a negative way.
Once the supervisor gets the employee’s commitment to change (a key goal), he or she should begin to follow the agreed-upon policy or solution immediately.
Any “business impact” discussion should include the consequences for non-compliance, which could mean the possibility of progressive discipline.
By focusing on the employee’s behaviors, by not using labels to describe what are actually behaviors, and being firm, fair, and consistent, the supervisor and the employee can get through a crucial conversation.
The Poor Hygiene Coaching Conversation:
As a rule, most hygiene problems have a foundation in five possible areas:
1. a medical problem (excessive sweating, sleep apnea, or as an adverse reaction to oral medications).
2. a stress or mental health issue (depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, a obsessive-compulsive disorder, hoarding, or a disconnection from reality).
3. a revenge issue (wanting to retaliate against another employee or a supervisor, i.e., “I’ll wear these same clothes every day for a week; that’ll show them!”).
4. a cultural issue (some people from other cultures or other countries are less concerned with hygiene than those in the US).
5. unaware of the impact on others (the employee rides his or her bike to work or exercises at lunch and doesn’t shower afterwards).
The following suggestions can help the concerned (but reluctant) supervisor to address an employee’s hygiene problem. You don’t have to read this word for word to the employee; just pick out the themes that work best for the employee or the hygiene concerns in question.
Supervisor: “If you have a minute, I’d like to talk to you in private about a work issue. This is an uncomfortable yet necessary part of my job. As hard as this is to talk about, I have some concerns that your body odor and/or soiled clothing is making it hard for other people to be around you. I’ve seen for myself that it’s affecting your co-workers and our vendors and customers in a way that’s not good for our business. I’m sure it’s embarrassing for you and it’s not my intention to make you feel worse.”
Medical reason:
“I’m not here to pry into your personal life and I don’t need to know any details from you, but sometimes hygiene problems come from a medical issue you might be facing. If you have a medical reason for this problem, you can bring me a note from your physician and we’ll discuss how we might accommodate you.”
Stress or mental health reason:
“I know that sometimes we all face off-the-job stressors that may make it difficult to want to come to work every day. Again, while I don’t want to know any details, if you’re having some personal, professional, or family stress, you can make use of our Employee Assistance Program (EAP) provider. It’s 100 per cent confidential; no one will ever know you have called them. You can speak to our EAP provide by phone, so I brought one of their brochures to leave with you just in case you might want to speak to a qualified professional when you’re alone.”
Revenge reason:
“Sometimes we have conflicts with our co-workers over small things that turn into big things. We can all agree that you don’t have to love everyone you work with, or even like everyone you work with, but we do have to co-exist in the office. If you have problems with anyone and can’t work it out with him or her first, please come see me, and I’ll address it.”
Cultural reason:
“We know that folks from difference countries or different cultures have personal preferences about clothing choices, hairstyles, diet choices, and personal cleanliness. We respect diversity here. That said, could you make certain that your personal appearance and clothing are neat, clean, and well-groomed before you start your work day?”
Unaware reason:
“I know you like to walk fast at lunch or like to exercise before you come into the office. Can you make sure that you take a moment to clean yourself thoroughly before you come back to your desk?”
Conclusion:
“Starting right away, I’d like you to follow our dress code and come to work clean and well-groomed. If it’s not a medical issue, I’d like you to begin with these changes starting tomorrow.”
Dr. Steve Albrecht, PHR, CPP, is a trainer and HR consultant in San Diego, CA. His 15 books include Added Value Negotiating; Ticking Bombs; and Tough Training Topics: A Presenter’s Survival Guide. He can be reached at drsteve@drstevealbrecht.com
There are two times where coaching is a useful intervention tool for supervisors: to address workplace performance issues or to address workplace behavioral issues.
Coaching is useful to help supervisors talk about four key areas within these performance or behavior realms: violation of policies and procedures (harassment, theft, substance abuse, threats, etc.); work performance (quality, missing deadlines, etc.); attendance (coming in late, leaving early, misusing breaks and lunches); and attitude (sarcasm, rudeness, or disrespect to supervisors, co-workers, or customers).
The question that arises with some supervisors is, “When do I have the right to discuss an off-the-job issue with an employee?’’
The answer is, “When it impacts the business of the department in a negative way.”
While we don’t want to pry into employees’ personal lives, we do have the right, duty, and obligation as supervisors to address issues or behaviors that make it hard for all employees to serve customers, work with others, or do their jobs.
In their book Crucial Conversations, Kerry Patterson and three co-authors discuss how to talk about tough topics with employees. They define “crucial conversations” as those where “opinions vary, stakes are high, and emotions run strong.”
This idea is one that can help both parties to see that the important discussion is not about a personality conflict, retaliation, passive-aggressive behavior, avoidance, or emotions. Rather, the focus centers on what the employee does or doesn’t do, should do differently, and how the issue at hand impacts the business in a negative way.
Once the supervisor gets the employee’s commitment to change (a key goal), he or she should begin to follow the agreed-upon policy or solution immediately.
Any “business impact” discussion should include the consequences for non-compliance, which could mean the possibility of progressive discipline.
By focusing on the employee’s behaviors, by not using labels to describe what are actually behaviors, and being firm, fair, and consistent, the supervisor and the employee can get through a crucial conversation.
The Poor Hygiene Coaching Conversation:
As a rule, most hygiene problems have a foundation in five possible areas:
1. a medical problem (excessive sweating, sleep apnea, or as an adverse reaction to oral medications).
2. a stress or mental health issue (depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, a obsessive-compulsive disorder, hoarding, or a disconnection from reality).
3. a revenge issue (wanting to retaliate against another employee or a supervisor, i.e., “I’ll wear these same clothes every day for a week; that’ll show them!”).
4. a cultural issue (some people from other cultures or other countries are less concerned with hygiene than those in the US).
5. unaware of the impact on others (the employee rides his or her bike to work or exercises at lunch and doesn’t shower afterwards).
The following suggestions can help the concerned (but reluctant) supervisor to address an employee’s hygiene problem. You don’t have to read this word for word to the employee; just pick out the themes that work best for the employee or the hygiene concerns in question.
Supervisor: “If you have a minute, I’d like to talk to you in private about a work issue. This is an uncomfortable yet necessary part of my job. As hard as this is to talk about, I have some concerns that your body odor and/or soiled clothing is making it hard for other people to be around you. I’ve seen for myself that it’s affecting your co-workers and our vendors and customers in a way that’s not good for our business. I’m sure it’s embarrassing for you and it’s not my intention to make you feel worse.”
Medical reason:
“I’m not here to pry into your personal life and I don’t need to know any details from you, but sometimes hygiene problems come from a medical issue you might be facing. If you have a medical reason for this problem, you can bring me a note from your physician and we’ll discuss how we might accommodate you.”
Stress or mental health reason:
“I know that sometimes we all face off-the-job stressors that may make it difficult to want to come to work every day. Again, while I don’t want to know any details, if you’re having some personal, professional, or family stress, you can make use of our Employee Assistance Program (EAP) provider. It’s 100 per cent confidential; no one will ever know you have called them. You can speak to our EAP provide by phone, so I brought one of their brochures to leave with you just in case you might want to speak to a qualified professional when you’re alone.”
Revenge reason:
“Sometimes we have conflicts with our co-workers over small things that turn into big things. We can all agree that you don’t have to love everyone you work with, or even like everyone you work with, but we do have to co-exist in the office. If you have problems with anyone and can’t work it out with him or her first, please come see me, and I’ll address it.”
Cultural reason:
“We know that folks from difference countries or different cultures have personal preferences about clothing choices, hairstyles, diet choices, and personal cleanliness. We respect diversity here. That said, could you make certain that your personal appearance and clothing are neat, clean, and well-groomed before you start your work day?”
Unaware reason:
“I know you like to walk fast at lunch or like to exercise before you come into the office. Can you make sure that you take a moment to clean yourself thoroughly before you come back to your desk?”
Conclusion:
“Starting right away, I’d like you to follow our dress code and come to work clean and well-groomed. If it’s not a medical issue, I’d like you to begin with these changes starting tomorrow.”
Dr. Steve Albrecht, PHR, CPP, is a trainer and HR consultant in San Diego, CA. His 15 books include Added Value Negotiating; Ticking Bombs; and Tough Training Topics: A Presenter’s Survival Guide. He can be reached at drsteve@drstevealbrecht.com
Sunday, March 7, 2010
R.O.S.C.O.: Your Writing Project Planner
My father, Dr. Karl Albrecht, created this useful writing tool over 30 years ago. It still works today. Give it a try. (Visit him at www.karlalbrecht.com)
Whether it’s an email to a co-worker, a client letter, or a report to your board, you’re judged by the words you choose and use. Here’s a five-step tool to help improve all of your business writing efforts, regardless of what format you choose or have to use. It’s called R.O.S.C.O., a quick mnemonic for better business writing.
Reader – Who will read what you’ve written?
It’s important to know who you’re writing for, since it might be one person or a dozen. Who is your reader? What do you already know about this person and what does he or she know about you or the issue, problem, solution, or opportunity you’re going to reveal? Will more than one person read your message (around the company or around the world)? What is the person’s position, language skills, or level of education, if you know?
Outcome – What do you want the Reader to do?
When writing, it often helps to begin at the end. What do you want this person to do, after reading your letter, memo, report, or proposal? Call you immediately? Circulate the data around to other parties? Say yes or no to a certain critical question or decision point? If you know what you want the Reader to do, then you’ll certainly want to organize your message to ask for or get that result.
Strategy – Your tone and texture.
These two elements compliment each other like good wine and fine cheese. Your tone can range from friendly to slightly cool, informal to legal-sounding, chatty to straightforward, short and to the point, or longer, with much more emphasis on the details. Your texture has to do with your word choices and your use of metaphors, similes, or appropriate figures of speech, to add drama, humor, or sophistication to your message.
Content – What you actually say.
This is the nuts-and-bolts of your e-mail, letter, proposal, or report, where you get your points across in an organized and thoughtful way. You give careful thought to the opening statement; the lead question, accompanying facts, or most important points. You consider what needs to be said first, last, and in the middle, using data or insights to support your ideas or requests. Finally, you craft the closing lines, ranging from a polite salutation to an immediate action step.
Organization – What it looks like.
This final point asks you to consider what you physically provide to your Reader. Is it a memo, plus an attached budget report? Is it an email with several presentation slides attached? Do you need to provide price sheets, samples, or catalogs? This issue is especially important if this is your first contact with the Reader. You want to make a professional impression, especially since that’s when most people judge the quality of your written communications, your company, and your products or services.
Dr. Steve Albrecht, PHR, CPP, is a trainer and consultant in San Diego, CA. He can be reached at drsteve@drstevealbrecht.com.
Whether it’s an email to a co-worker, a client letter, or a report to your board, you’re judged by the words you choose and use. Here’s a five-step tool to help improve all of your business writing efforts, regardless of what format you choose or have to use. It’s called R.O.S.C.O., a quick mnemonic for better business writing.
Reader – Who will read what you’ve written?
It’s important to know who you’re writing for, since it might be one person or a dozen. Who is your reader? What do you already know about this person and what does he or she know about you or the issue, problem, solution, or opportunity you’re going to reveal? Will more than one person read your message (around the company or around the world)? What is the person’s position, language skills, or level of education, if you know?
Outcome – What do you want the Reader to do?
When writing, it often helps to begin at the end. What do you want this person to do, after reading your letter, memo, report, or proposal? Call you immediately? Circulate the data around to other parties? Say yes or no to a certain critical question or decision point? If you know what you want the Reader to do, then you’ll certainly want to organize your message to ask for or get that result.
Strategy – Your tone and texture.
These two elements compliment each other like good wine and fine cheese. Your tone can range from friendly to slightly cool, informal to legal-sounding, chatty to straightforward, short and to the point, or longer, with much more emphasis on the details. Your texture has to do with your word choices and your use of metaphors, similes, or appropriate figures of speech, to add drama, humor, or sophistication to your message.
Content – What you actually say.
This is the nuts-and-bolts of your e-mail, letter, proposal, or report, where you get your points across in an organized and thoughtful way. You give careful thought to the opening statement; the lead question, accompanying facts, or most important points. You consider what needs to be said first, last, and in the middle, using data or insights to support your ideas or requests. Finally, you craft the closing lines, ranging from a polite salutation to an immediate action step.
Organization – What it looks like.
This final point asks you to consider what you physically provide to your Reader. Is it a memo, plus an attached budget report? Is it an email with several presentation slides attached? Do you need to provide price sheets, samples, or catalogs? This issue is especially important if this is your first contact with the Reader. You want to make a professional impression, especially since that’s when most people judge the quality of your written communications, your company, and your products or services.
Dr. Steve Albrecht, PHR, CPP, is a trainer and consultant in San Diego, CA. He can be reached at drsteve@drstevealbrecht.com.
The Care & Feeding of Your Expert Witness
Working as an expert witness in a civil case, I enjoy the challenge of the issues at hand and it provides a good break from the main work in my consulting and training practice areas.
So having been around attorneys and opposing counsel, and after talking with many colleagues who have served in the expert witness role, I offer the following food / water/ and exercise guidelines to keep your expert witnesses happy and healthy:
Do speak to us before you depose other witnesses.
We welcome the chance to help you develop a questioning strategy that supports your current plan. We want to help you attack the other side’s covert or barefaced lies right when you hear them. You already know it’s not uncommon for some of their experts to stretch the truth and claim they can fix everything from schizophrenia to dandruff. In one of my cases, the other side’s security expert claimed in his C.V., to have personally conducted over 4,000 site security surveys in 10 years, a run of more than one per day, every single day, for a decade! Had I known of this prior to his deposition, we could have laid a better trap for this outrageous claim.
Ask us what we might ask the pending deposition witness, if we were in your shoes. Even five or six questions from us might lead you to themes that were previously not in your thoughts.
Do give us mock questions and spend enough time on our deposition preparation.
Since I only work on civil cases, and I work a lot in the Golden State, most of my cases settle, either after my deposition and prior to trial, or prior to my deposition and prior to trial. Truth be told, either way I’m always a bit relieved. Depositions and court appearances are a near-daily event for many attorneys; not so for the expert witnesses, who find these procedures stressful. We can all use a bit of coaching from you, prior to any deposition or court session. Put us through our paces for an hour or so. Ask hard questions and role-play the events so we know what to expect. Give us some deep background on the opposing counsel, so we can prepare for their styles. (Since the best indicator of future behavior is past behavior, most attorneys don’t usually change their deposition approach from case to case. What you know about their past can help us avoid some of their well-laid mine fields.)
Do respond to our questions and materials.
We realize you have other cases and this may be just one of many plates you’re spinning. But we need some reassurance that you received all of the reports, correspondence, faxes, updates, case notes, or even just our suggestions, that we have may have sent over. If you haven’t read what we’ve given you, we will both look bad when the other side picks up a page and starts dissecting every comma and semicolon.
Do discuss the strengths and weaknesses of your case and the scope of testimony you want from us.
Since we aren’t usually attorneys ourselves, we have a marked tendency to see the ocean through our own drinking straw. Your specialty area may not be ours. It always helps us to hear the burden of proof, the standard of care, the jury instructions, the most recent case laws, or the appellate decisions on our cases. We want to know what you think will work and what will not, in terms of our testimony. Tell us what you want to get on the record and what areas we should avoid. Discuss the downside, so we can see what the other side wants us to admit.
Do pay us on time.
The relationship between expert and attorney should be based on mutual trust, respect for each other’s abilities, and economic fairness. Plenty of hard feelings can arise when the party with the checkbook changes the tune in mid-dance for the party waiting for the check. Most experts have learned this the hard way, and now use letters of agreement, ask for retainers, and expect payment for services rendered, win or lose. Unpaid experts can emit an air of “saying anything for your side, just to get paid” to opposing counsel.
Further, just as attorneys gossip about lousy experts, experts gossip about unethical, non-paying attorneys. We realize you often get paid at the very end of the case, if at all. We know you have expenses and contingency agreements with your clients. And you already know that we can’t say, “they said the check is in the mail,” when we’re at the checkout stand at the grocery store.
Don’t wait until the last minute to get us important case documentation.
I’ve read case materials on the plane ride out to the deposition, overnighted to me in much haste and expense, even though they were created months ago. Sometimes these things are unavoidable, but when they are just a result of bad planning, it creates stress for us. Give us the time to read, digest, and comment on new information or events.
Don’t expect us to lie or exaggerate for your case or your client.
No attorney would ever say to an expert, “Here’s a list of lies I want you to tell.” However, sometimes the line between the real truth (which may hurt your case) and asking us to make an intentional “omission” when it comes to the facts, can dent our ethical compasses. Sometimes a bad set of facts is what it is, so asking us to put a public spin on things is morally and ethically difficult.
Don’t leave us hanging during the deposition.
We know you’re not allowed to coach us through a difficult part of the process, but you can help us by protecting us. The tried-and-true “let’s take a break” approach gives us a chance to re-gather our wits, locate that ever-missing document we’ve been struggling to find since Minute One, and hear from you what is the best answer to the last presenting question. Three things help us in deposition the most: having you pay close attention to what opposing counsel asks (so you can object or help us stay within our scope); having you remain civil with opposing counsel (back-and-forth arguments where one attorney threatens to get a restraining order against the other or to drag everyone in front of the judge can rattle our nerves. We know it’s rare these bluffs get called, but the exchanges disrupt our flow of thoughts); and reminding us to “just answer the question asked,” and not prattle on and on.
Don’t take us too far out of our comfort zones.
It is the wise expert witness who does not profess knowledge, skills, or abilities in areas where he or she is not strong. Review our C.V.’s and helps us both put an intellectual fence around our strong suits. When opposing counsel tries to take us off into the high grass, where we are not suited and could hurt your efforts, put the brakes on them.
Don’t leave us hanging after the case settles. Debrief!
This last one is a major pet peeve of mine. I have been on cases where I heard nothing for months after a deposition – no returned calls, no progress reports, no updates. And then BOOM! I get a phone message from a paralegal, saying, “Uh, the Rudolph v. Claus case just settled, so please send us your final bill. Thanks.” We have a need for closure, so get on the phone to tell us what happened. We realize many of the settlement details are confidential, but give us a good sense of how or if we contributed to your success.
The relationship between attorneys and expert witness is critical for both sides. By staying with appropriate boundaries and professional practices, we can both get the benefits we need.
Dr. Steve Albrecht, PHR, CPP, is internationally known for his work on high-risk HR issues and workplace violence prevention. He can be reached at drsteve@drstevealbrecht.com.
So having been around attorneys and opposing counsel, and after talking with many colleagues who have served in the expert witness role, I offer the following food / water/ and exercise guidelines to keep your expert witnesses happy and healthy:
Do speak to us before you depose other witnesses.
We welcome the chance to help you develop a questioning strategy that supports your current plan. We want to help you attack the other side’s covert or barefaced lies right when you hear them. You already know it’s not uncommon for some of their experts to stretch the truth and claim they can fix everything from schizophrenia to dandruff. In one of my cases, the other side’s security expert claimed in his C.V., to have personally conducted over 4,000 site security surveys in 10 years, a run of more than one per day, every single day, for a decade! Had I known of this prior to his deposition, we could have laid a better trap for this outrageous claim.
Ask us what we might ask the pending deposition witness, if we were in your shoes. Even five or six questions from us might lead you to themes that were previously not in your thoughts.
Do give us mock questions and spend enough time on our deposition preparation.
Since I only work on civil cases, and I work a lot in the Golden State, most of my cases settle, either after my deposition and prior to trial, or prior to my deposition and prior to trial. Truth be told, either way I’m always a bit relieved. Depositions and court appearances are a near-daily event for many attorneys; not so for the expert witnesses, who find these procedures stressful. We can all use a bit of coaching from you, prior to any deposition or court session. Put us through our paces for an hour or so. Ask hard questions and role-play the events so we know what to expect. Give us some deep background on the opposing counsel, so we can prepare for their styles. (Since the best indicator of future behavior is past behavior, most attorneys don’t usually change their deposition approach from case to case. What you know about their past can help us avoid some of their well-laid mine fields.)
Do respond to our questions and materials.
We realize you have other cases and this may be just one of many plates you’re spinning. But we need some reassurance that you received all of the reports, correspondence, faxes, updates, case notes, or even just our suggestions, that we have may have sent over. If you haven’t read what we’ve given you, we will both look bad when the other side picks up a page and starts dissecting every comma and semicolon.
Do discuss the strengths and weaknesses of your case and the scope of testimony you want from us.
Since we aren’t usually attorneys ourselves, we have a marked tendency to see the ocean through our own drinking straw. Your specialty area may not be ours. It always helps us to hear the burden of proof, the standard of care, the jury instructions, the most recent case laws, or the appellate decisions on our cases. We want to know what you think will work and what will not, in terms of our testimony. Tell us what you want to get on the record and what areas we should avoid. Discuss the downside, so we can see what the other side wants us to admit.
Do pay us on time.
The relationship between expert and attorney should be based on mutual trust, respect for each other’s abilities, and economic fairness. Plenty of hard feelings can arise when the party with the checkbook changes the tune in mid-dance for the party waiting for the check. Most experts have learned this the hard way, and now use letters of agreement, ask for retainers, and expect payment for services rendered, win or lose. Unpaid experts can emit an air of “saying anything for your side, just to get paid” to opposing counsel.
Further, just as attorneys gossip about lousy experts, experts gossip about unethical, non-paying attorneys. We realize you often get paid at the very end of the case, if at all. We know you have expenses and contingency agreements with your clients. And you already know that we can’t say, “they said the check is in the mail,” when we’re at the checkout stand at the grocery store.
Don’t wait until the last minute to get us important case documentation.
I’ve read case materials on the plane ride out to the deposition, overnighted to me in much haste and expense, even though they were created months ago. Sometimes these things are unavoidable, but when they are just a result of bad planning, it creates stress for us. Give us the time to read, digest, and comment on new information or events.
Don’t expect us to lie or exaggerate for your case or your client.
No attorney would ever say to an expert, “Here’s a list of lies I want you to tell.” However, sometimes the line between the real truth (which may hurt your case) and asking us to make an intentional “omission” when it comes to the facts, can dent our ethical compasses. Sometimes a bad set of facts is what it is, so asking us to put a public spin on things is morally and ethically difficult.
Don’t leave us hanging during the deposition.
We know you’re not allowed to coach us through a difficult part of the process, but you can help us by protecting us. The tried-and-true “let’s take a break” approach gives us a chance to re-gather our wits, locate that ever-missing document we’ve been struggling to find since Minute One, and hear from you what is the best answer to the last presenting question. Three things help us in deposition the most: having you pay close attention to what opposing counsel asks (so you can object or help us stay within our scope); having you remain civil with opposing counsel (back-and-forth arguments where one attorney threatens to get a restraining order against the other or to drag everyone in front of the judge can rattle our nerves. We know it’s rare these bluffs get called, but the exchanges disrupt our flow of thoughts); and reminding us to “just answer the question asked,” and not prattle on and on.
Don’t take us too far out of our comfort zones.
It is the wise expert witness who does not profess knowledge, skills, or abilities in areas where he or she is not strong. Review our C.V.’s and helps us both put an intellectual fence around our strong suits. When opposing counsel tries to take us off into the high grass, where we are not suited and could hurt your efforts, put the brakes on them.
Don’t leave us hanging after the case settles. Debrief!
This last one is a major pet peeve of mine. I have been on cases where I heard nothing for months after a deposition – no returned calls, no progress reports, no updates. And then BOOM! I get a phone message from a paralegal, saying, “Uh, the Rudolph v. Claus case just settled, so please send us your final bill. Thanks.” We have a need for closure, so get on the phone to tell us what happened. We realize many of the settlement details are confidential, but give us a good sense of how or if we contributed to your success.
The relationship between attorneys and expert witness is critical for both sides. By staying with appropriate boundaries and professional practices, we can both get the benefits we need.
Dr. Steve Albrecht, PHR, CPP, is internationally known for his work on high-risk HR issues and workplace violence prevention. He can be reached at drsteve@drstevealbrecht.com.
The R.E.D.S. Workplace Stress Solution
The R.E.D.S. Workplace Stress Solution
Time and tempers are getting shorter in the office. What can we do to help our employees and ourselves to self-manage stress?
First, it’s easy to keep focusing on the future instead of spending some valuable time, as a work group or team, relishing our successes in the past. Good bosses can start by using more praise, thanking their people personally, proactively, and sincerely, for the quality of their work.
One of the keys to stress management is having proper perspective. Many people are worker longer and harder than ever before, just to keep pace with the economy, their financial needs, and their desire to spend time at home. We can all feel caught up on a treadmill, with no end in sight. This can lead to conflicts between employees with differing opinions as to what and how things get done. It can help for each employee to take a moment to catch his or her breath, pause for a second, and then provide an answer to a colleague that’s based on clear thinking over harsh emotions.
Second, it’s important to keep the concept of life-work balance in mind. It may not be possible to get it all done in one day. As Teddy Roosevelt said, “Do the best you can, with what you have, where you are.” This means that as an employee, you should be satisfied with giving your best efforts, knowing that there are a lot of distractions in the office as you try to meet your goals. As a supervisor, you should be flexible and realistic as to how much you can get done yourself, and how much your employees can accomplish.
As for personal stress management, the “R.E.D.S.” acronym can help: Relaxation, Exercise, Diet, Sleep.
Relaxation means taking the time, each day, to find a quiet place to close your eyes for a few moments and fully relax your body, head to toe. Even 15 minutes can make a huge difference in your energy level.
Exercise means that you try to get at least 30 minutes of exercise every day. Many busy people are buying pedometers and trying to log the suggested 10,000 steps in their daily work, home, and fitness routines. Exercise burns stress as much as it does calories.
Diet means that you steer clear of too many feel-good foods and focus on eating small amounts of healthy portions, in moderation. Too much alcohol, sugar, and fats add to stress levels and waistlines.
Sleep needs are a big key to managing stress. We are a sleep-deprived culture and most people rarely get the eight hours they need to reset their minds and bodies and prepare for the next day. Developing pre-sleep rituals like showering, listening to soft music, reading, or writing a to-do list for tomorrow by the bedside tonight, can help prepare your mind for slumber.
It’s always a good time to focus on two keys: gratitude and optimism. We all have things to be grateful for: good health, connections with family or friends, continued employment, some money in the bank, and hope for the future.
Finally, perhaps a little Zen thinking can help as well. Everything in life is a series of moments. If we take the time to enjoy the little moments at the office: a pleasant environment, familiar and friendly colleagues, and new business on the horizon, it’s all good.
Dr. Steve Albrecht, PHR, CPP, is a San Diego-based trainer and high-risk HR consultant. He can be reached at drsteve@drstevealbrecht.com.
Time and tempers are getting shorter in the office. What can we do to help our employees and ourselves to self-manage stress?
First, it’s easy to keep focusing on the future instead of spending some valuable time, as a work group or team, relishing our successes in the past. Good bosses can start by using more praise, thanking their people personally, proactively, and sincerely, for the quality of their work.
One of the keys to stress management is having proper perspective. Many people are worker longer and harder than ever before, just to keep pace with the economy, their financial needs, and their desire to spend time at home. We can all feel caught up on a treadmill, with no end in sight. This can lead to conflicts between employees with differing opinions as to what and how things get done. It can help for each employee to take a moment to catch his or her breath, pause for a second, and then provide an answer to a colleague that’s based on clear thinking over harsh emotions.
Second, it’s important to keep the concept of life-work balance in mind. It may not be possible to get it all done in one day. As Teddy Roosevelt said, “Do the best you can, with what you have, where you are.” This means that as an employee, you should be satisfied with giving your best efforts, knowing that there are a lot of distractions in the office as you try to meet your goals. As a supervisor, you should be flexible and realistic as to how much you can get done yourself, and how much your employees can accomplish.
As for personal stress management, the “R.E.D.S.” acronym can help: Relaxation, Exercise, Diet, Sleep.
Relaxation means taking the time, each day, to find a quiet place to close your eyes for a few moments and fully relax your body, head to toe. Even 15 minutes can make a huge difference in your energy level.
Exercise means that you try to get at least 30 minutes of exercise every day. Many busy people are buying pedometers and trying to log the suggested 10,000 steps in their daily work, home, and fitness routines. Exercise burns stress as much as it does calories.
Diet means that you steer clear of too many feel-good foods and focus on eating small amounts of healthy portions, in moderation. Too much alcohol, sugar, and fats add to stress levels and waistlines.
Sleep needs are a big key to managing stress. We are a sleep-deprived culture and most people rarely get the eight hours they need to reset their minds and bodies and prepare for the next day. Developing pre-sleep rituals like showering, listening to soft music, reading, or writing a to-do list for tomorrow by the bedside tonight, can help prepare your mind for slumber.
It’s always a good time to focus on two keys: gratitude and optimism. We all have things to be grateful for: good health, connections with family or friends, continued employment, some money in the bank, and hope for the future.
Finally, perhaps a little Zen thinking can help as well. Everything in life is a series of moments. If we take the time to enjoy the little moments at the office: a pleasant environment, familiar and friendly colleagues, and new business on the horizon, it’s all good.
Dr. Steve Albrecht, PHR, CPP, is a San Diego-based trainer and high-risk HR consultant. He can be reached at drsteve@drstevealbrecht.com.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Keep Your Company Business to Yourself
Keep Your Company Business to Yourself: Security Information and the Media
We have this idea that computer hackers are ingeniously bright people. We hear stories, true or otherwise, as to how they seem to finagle valuable information from us, using the most sophisticated social engineering techniques. In reality, they often use such tricky questions as, “I’m calling from the IT Department. We’re doing some system checks on your T-3 line. I’ll need to reprogram your current password with a new one. You’re using the one that’s all letters, right?”
And so we dutifully comply with what seems to be a reasonable and logical request from some resident authority figure who surely has our best interests in mind. Often within minutes, we will reveal confidential company or personal information, over the phone, or through an email reply to a complete stranger who talks or writes a good line.
Reading all this and reflecting on your own sense of eternal security vigilance, you’ll swear that you’d never give out a byte of confidential or important data, over the phone, across cyberspace, or even face-to-face. Your motto is: “Hang me up by my thumbs for a week and I still wouldn’t even tell you my first name.”
And all this may be true when you believe the information requester may be a wolf in sheep’s leggings, but how about when the asker-to-be is from your local or national news media? Are you still tight-lipped and careful, or do you get caught up in the glow of the First Amendment’s pad and pen, the video camera, or the microphone? It’s hard for even savvy security professionals not to spill some beans when faced with the often flattering request for information and a chance to demonstrate subject matter expertise.
But just as loose lips sink ships, the desire to provide information to the media must be measured by the impact, or more accurately, the harms a few words or figures can betray.
Several years ago, the Business section of the Orange County (Calif.) Register, featured a two-page photo spread on the history of the Southland Corporation’s reason for being: the 7-11 store. Along with a history of the Big Gulp business, the piece featured an interview with Anaheim 7-11 franchisee Herb Domeño, owner of nine stores, including the site at Katella and Harbor. For those not familiar with southern California real estate, this prime property is directly adjacent to an Enchanted Kingdom knows as Disneyland.
Back then, Mr. Domeño’s stone’s throw-to-Disneyland convenience store boasted the highest sales volume in the country – an average of $3 million per year, clearly above the national sales-per-store average of about $1.3 million per year.
Taking out our trusty calculators, we could have determined that, give or take some up or down days in the boom-boom 1990’s, Mr. Domeño’s enterprise took in about $8,000 per day.
And how did we discern this figure? It’s easy to uncover, especially when the $3 million sales amount is featured boldly in the photo caption of Mr. Domeño in his cash-cow store. (By the way, the new national sales record for one 7-11 convenience store belongs to the folks running the show in Southampton, NY.
So what has the Orange County Register just told every enterprising convenience store robber who can read? This place is full of cash and even if they aren’t cleaning up like they did before Disneyland closed a nearby parking lot to make room for its California Adventure addition, Mr. Stickup Artist has to believe it’s worth a shot.
Even if the daily revenue figure is adjusted for slow days and customers who pay with debit or credit cards, it’s still a substantial amount of cash that is either on the premises or being moved, via some safe means we hope, to the bank.
In times of organizational crisis, it’s wise to have a designated member of the executive team speak to the print or TV media. This person will have the training, experience, and savvy to say the right things, at the right times. News gatherers, on the other hand, won’t always seek out your Director of Corporate Communications (or similarly-titled representative). If they want the juicy details, any gossip, or the “inside story,” they might go to any executive or manager they can find, or worse, to an employee, who gives an opinion as if it was a fact.
In a perfect world, the security professional would also be part of the discussion and review of any press release, placed article, or editorial coming from the organization that has any security-related content. “Facts and figures” statements tossed out like: “Our security system is so sophisticated it only takes one guard per eight-hour shift to operate it,” or “Our jewelry store revenues have never been higher” might be great PR, but they can turn your business into a new target, by people or groups who never considered it as one before.
If you’re tasked with speaking to a media member about any aspect of your business operations or performance, choose your words carefully. Use the technique every politician is trained in from birth: bridging. Bridging simply requires you to “bridge over” to the question you want to answer versus the question you’re asked.
This approach works best when you’re asked the question you don’t really want to answer, i.e. Reporter: “Isn’t it true that your firm’s movement to stricter access control has created a `prison camp environment’ for your employees and customers?” Security Professional: “As you know, our approach has always been to put the safety and security needs of our people and our customers first. As such, we believe in creating the best working environment possible…”
Get the idea? You don’t answer a direct, confrontive question with a direct, assertive answer on point. You vary the response to make sure you cover your points, not theirs.
When in doubt, choose to be bland, especially with any information that hints of having a financial, proprietary, or trade-secret connection. “We’ve got a good handle on our inventory” sounds so much better than, “We’ve got a ton of expensive stuff laying around our warehouse.”
The old adage all publicity is good publicity has its exceptions. Better for people to read about your firm and have to make assumptions about your security, than to know too much detail.
Dr. Steve Albrecht, PHR, CPP, is a San Diego-based trainer and consultant. He can be reached at www.drstevealbrecht.com.
We have this idea that computer hackers are ingeniously bright people. We hear stories, true or otherwise, as to how they seem to finagle valuable information from us, using the most sophisticated social engineering techniques. In reality, they often use such tricky questions as, “I’m calling from the IT Department. We’re doing some system checks on your T-3 line. I’ll need to reprogram your current password with a new one. You’re using the one that’s all letters, right?”
And so we dutifully comply with what seems to be a reasonable and logical request from some resident authority figure who surely has our best interests in mind. Often within minutes, we will reveal confidential company or personal information, over the phone, or through an email reply to a complete stranger who talks or writes a good line.
Reading all this and reflecting on your own sense of eternal security vigilance, you’ll swear that you’d never give out a byte of confidential or important data, over the phone, across cyberspace, or even face-to-face. Your motto is: “Hang me up by my thumbs for a week and I still wouldn’t even tell you my first name.”
And all this may be true when you believe the information requester may be a wolf in sheep’s leggings, but how about when the asker-to-be is from your local or national news media? Are you still tight-lipped and careful, or do you get caught up in the glow of the First Amendment’s pad and pen, the video camera, or the microphone? It’s hard for even savvy security professionals not to spill some beans when faced with the often flattering request for information and a chance to demonstrate subject matter expertise.
But just as loose lips sink ships, the desire to provide information to the media must be measured by the impact, or more accurately, the harms a few words or figures can betray.
Several years ago, the Business section of the Orange County (Calif.) Register, featured a two-page photo spread on the history of the Southland Corporation’s reason for being: the 7-11 store. Along with a history of the Big Gulp business, the piece featured an interview with Anaheim 7-11 franchisee Herb Domeño, owner of nine stores, including the site at Katella and Harbor. For those not familiar with southern California real estate, this prime property is directly adjacent to an Enchanted Kingdom knows as Disneyland.
Back then, Mr. Domeño’s stone’s throw-to-Disneyland convenience store boasted the highest sales volume in the country – an average of $3 million per year, clearly above the national sales-per-store average of about $1.3 million per year.
Taking out our trusty calculators, we could have determined that, give or take some up or down days in the boom-boom 1990’s, Mr. Domeño’s enterprise took in about $8,000 per day.
And how did we discern this figure? It’s easy to uncover, especially when the $3 million sales amount is featured boldly in the photo caption of Mr. Domeño in his cash-cow store. (By the way, the new national sales record for one 7-11 convenience store belongs to the folks running the show in Southampton, NY.
So what has the Orange County Register just told every enterprising convenience store robber who can read? This place is full of cash and even if they aren’t cleaning up like they did before Disneyland closed a nearby parking lot to make room for its California Adventure addition, Mr. Stickup Artist has to believe it’s worth a shot.
Even if the daily revenue figure is adjusted for slow days and customers who pay with debit or credit cards, it’s still a substantial amount of cash that is either on the premises or being moved, via some safe means we hope, to the bank.
In times of organizational crisis, it’s wise to have a designated member of the executive team speak to the print or TV media. This person will have the training, experience, and savvy to say the right things, at the right times. News gatherers, on the other hand, won’t always seek out your Director of Corporate Communications (or similarly-titled representative). If they want the juicy details, any gossip, or the “inside story,” they might go to any executive or manager they can find, or worse, to an employee, who gives an opinion as if it was a fact.
In a perfect world, the security professional would also be part of the discussion and review of any press release, placed article, or editorial coming from the organization that has any security-related content. “Facts and figures” statements tossed out like: “Our security system is so sophisticated it only takes one guard per eight-hour shift to operate it,” or “Our jewelry store revenues have never been higher” might be great PR, but they can turn your business into a new target, by people or groups who never considered it as one before.
If you’re tasked with speaking to a media member about any aspect of your business operations or performance, choose your words carefully. Use the technique every politician is trained in from birth: bridging. Bridging simply requires you to “bridge over” to the question you want to answer versus the question you’re asked.
This approach works best when you’re asked the question you don’t really want to answer, i.e. Reporter: “Isn’t it true that your firm’s movement to stricter access control has created a `prison camp environment’ for your employees and customers?” Security Professional: “As you know, our approach has always been to put the safety and security needs of our people and our customers first. As such, we believe in creating the best working environment possible…”
Get the idea? You don’t answer a direct, confrontive question with a direct, assertive answer on point. You vary the response to make sure you cover your points, not theirs.
When in doubt, choose to be bland, especially with any information that hints of having a financial, proprietary, or trade-secret connection. “We’ve got a good handle on our inventory” sounds so much better than, “We’ve got a ton of expensive stuff laying around our warehouse.”
The old adage all publicity is good publicity has its exceptions. Better for people to read about your firm and have to make assumptions about your security, than to know too much detail.
Dr. Steve Albrecht, PHR, CPP, is a San Diego-based trainer and consultant. He can be reached at www.drstevealbrecht.com.
Teams In Conflict, Employees Under Stress
Teams In Conflict, Employees Under Stress
Conflict costs money. It’s bad for business along many levels: the people side of the enterprise, the productivity, morale, and team cohesion, and the simple fact that employees who don’t like coming to work in a toxic environment will quit.
No professional construction worker or auto mechanic would try to build or fix anything without the proper tools. Yet, how many business people enter “repair” situations lacking the correct tools for the job?
Start by teaching and modeling good communication ground rules. If you’re the group leader, the employees will look to you in most situations involving conflict. The behaviors you display during any group or two-person mediation session will go a long way toward determining the success, now and in the future. Simply by using the phrase, “Hey folks, remember our ground rules,” during those moments when the heat in the room rises, can bring the participants back to a manageable level. Here are some good ground rules to help minimize office conflict situations:
Describe people in terms of their behaviors, not by using labels.
Labels are both shortsighted and not helpful. The label “Jennifer’s not a good team player” should be substituted with the statement that says: “Jennifer needs to focus on helping others more during our busy times.” By shifting the statement away from a negative descriptor and more toward behavior-based actions, you can help the person or the group to understand how and why they need to make changes.
Give quick, direct, non-personal feedback.
Use specific language. In a group conflict, it’s common for the manager to hear Mary say, “I hate it when Dave leaves my work area a mess,” when Dave is also in the room too! The manager’s response should be, “Mary, Dave’s right here. Turn to him and tell him what you just told me. We’re all adults. We should be able to give each other direct, immediate feedback without hurting each other’s feelings.”
From the supervisor’s perspective, the underlying theme of this approach should be: “Don’t run to me with every little problem that you should be solving amongst yourselves. If you have a performance issue with a co-worker, do what you can to solve it right when you see it and not wait days or weeks for me to intervene. If you can’t solve it together, using our communication tools, then bring it to me for help.”
Test for truth.
Too many people accept sweeping generalizations, distorted opinions given as facts, or other forms of “all-ness” language at face value. Ask more questions and test for the real truth: “When you say, they never (or they always) do this, what exactly do you mean? Give me some examples. Does it happen every day, once per week, or only rarely?”
Some conflict in life and at work is inevitable and unavoidable. But like all other work problems that affect people’s performance and productivity, it can and should be managed. Use these tools and see if you can start lowering the emotional temperature in your office today.
Dr. Steve Albrecht, PHR, CPP, is a San Diego-based trainer and consultant for high-risk HR subjects. He can be reached at drsteve@drstevealbrecht.com
Conflict costs money. It’s bad for business along many levels: the people side of the enterprise, the productivity, morale, and team cohesion, and the simple fact that employees who don’t like coming to work in a toxic environment will quit.
No professional construction worker or auto mechanic would try to build or fix anything without the proper tools. Yet, how many business people enter “repair” situations lacking the correct tools for the job?
Start by teaching and modeling good communication ground rules. If you’re the group leader, the employees will look to you in most situations involving conflict. The behaviors you display during any group or two-person mediation session will go a long way toward determining the success, now and in the future. Simply by using the phrase, “Hey folks, remember our ground rules,” during those moments when the heat in the room rises, can bring the participants back to a manageable level. Here are some good ground rules to help minimize office conflict situations:
Describe people in terms of their behaviors, not by using labels.
Labels are both shortsighted and not helpful. The label “Jennifer’s not a good team player” should be substituted with the statement that says: “Jennifer needs to focus on helping others more during our busy times.” By shifting the statement away from a negative descriptor and more toward behavior-based actions, you can help the person or the group to understand how and why they need to make changes.
Give quick, direct, non-personal feedback.
Use specific language. In a group conflict, it’s common for the manager to hear Mary say, “I hate it when Dave leaves my work area a mess,” when Dave is also in the room too! The manager’s response should be, “Mary, Dave’s right here. Turn to him and tell him what you just told me. We’re all adults. We should be able to give each other direct, immediate feedback without hurting each other’s feelings.”
From the supervisor’s perspective, the underlying theme of this approach should be: “Don’t run to me with every little problem that you should be solving amongst yourselves. If you have a performance issue with a co-worker, do what you can to solve it right when you see it and not wait days or weeks for me to intervene. If you can’t solve it together, using our communication tools, then bring it to me for help.”
Test for truth.
Too many people accept sweeping generalizations, distorted opinions given as facts, or other forms of “all-ness” language at face value. Ask more questions and test for the real truth: “When you say, they never (or they always) do this, what exactly do you mean? Give me some examples. Does it happen every day, once per week, or only rarely?”
Some conflict in life and at work is inevitable and unavoidable. But like all other work problems that affect people’s performance and productivity, it can and should be managed. Use these tools and see if you can start lowering the emotional temperature in your office today.
Dr. Steve Albrecht, PHR, CPP, is a San Diego-based trainer and consultant for high-risk HR subjects. He can be reached at drsteve@drstevealbrecht.com
Using Praise for Employee Performance Improvement
Using Praise for Employee Performance Improvement
It seems we have become a nation of self-rewarders, patting ourselves on the backs for our accomplishments at work, instead of waiting for our bosses, co-workers, or customers to do it. The list of employees who say, “My boss constantly praises me for my efforts,” is often painfully short.
In reality, many business owners, managers, or supervisors are too busy and too distracted to see the value of rewarding their people. The subject of incentive programs always seems to fall to the bottom of their to-do list. This is a shame on many levels, because people will work hard and long for more than just pay. When they are publicly noticed and heralded for what they have done, they’ll do more because they feel good doing it and they know it’s important. And when they get singled out for their energy and enthusiasm, hard work leads to more hard work.
Rewards can come from a multitude of sources: reading a positive customer or vendor letter at an all-hands staff meeting, having the chief executive formally recognize employees at a training meeting, writing an article about the employee for the company newsletter or website, letting the employee shop at a discount in the company store (if applicable), movie passes, dinner certificates, the special close-to-the-front-entrance parking space, and the most popular incentives of all: working only a half-day or getting a discretionary day.
People in the office who say, “Don’t make a big deal about my birthday,” secretly like it when folks make a big deal about their birthday – cake, cards, balloons tied to the chair, confetti on their desks, and hearing that song with their name in it.
Napoleon said, “An army travels on its stomach.” Today, he’d know that a work team is often motivated by food. More money is great, extra benefits are fine, and time off is very important, but food has always been a powerful motivator for employees.
Whether it’s pizzas, salads, and sodas on Fridays, bagels and coffee on Mondays, or cake and cookies at the monthly birthday lunch, the secret to using goodies as a reward is to be random with both the selections and the dates. If employees get the same tired choices each week after week, their enthusiasm wanes quickly.
Any employee reward, from food to formal recognition programs, should be as episodic as your luck during a casino visit. If you won all the time, the casino would close; if you lost all the time, the casino would close. Success in the casino business comes when the players don’t expect their triumphs. As such, the element of surprise seems to work best when it comes to edible rewards.
Public recognition is necessary, motivating, and plain fun. Whether it’s a cash gift or a small thing presented by a bigwig, rewards work.
Dr. Steve Albrecht, PHR, CPP, is a trainer and HR consultant in San Diego, CA. He can be reached at drsteve@drstevealbrecht.com
It seems we have become a nation of self-rewarders, patting ourselves on the backs for our accomplishments at work, instead of waiting for our bosses, co-workers, or customers to do it. The list of employees who say, “My boss constantly praises me for my efforts,” is often painfully short.
In reality, many business owners, managers, or supervisors are too busy and too distracted to see the value of rewarding their people. The subject of incentive programs always seems to fall to the bottom of their to-do list. This is a shame on many levels, because people will work hard and long for more than just pay. When they are publicly noticed and heralded for what they have done, they’ll do more because they feel good doing it and they know it’s important. And when they get singled out for their energy and enthusiasm, hard work leads to more hard work.
Rewards can come from a multitude of sources: reading a positive customer or vendor letter at an all-hands staff meeting, having the chief executive formally recognize employees at a training meeting, writing an article about the employee for the company newsletter or website, letting the employee shop at a discount in the company store (if applicable), movie passes, dinner certificates, the special close-to-the-front-entrance parking space, and the most popular incentives of all: working only a half-day or getting a discretionary day.
People in the office who say, “Don’t make a big deal about my birthday,” secretly like it when folks make a big deal about their birthday – cake, cards, balloons tied to the chair, confetti on their desks, and hearing that song with their name in it.
Napoleon said, “An army travels on its stomach.” Today, he’d know that a work team is often motivated by food. More money is great, extra benefits are fine, and time off is very important, but food has always been a powerful motivator for employees.
Whether it’s pizzas, salads, and sodas on Fridays, bagels and coffee on Mondays, or cake and cookies at the monthly birthday lunch, the secret to using goodies as a reward is to be random with both the selections and the dates. If employees get the same tired choices each week after week, their enthusiasm wanes quickly.
Any employee reward, from food to formal recognition programs, should be as episodic as your luck during a casino visit. If you won all the time, the casino would close; if you lost all the time, the casino would close. Success in the casino business comes when the players don’t expect their triumphs. As such, the element of surprise seems to work best when it comes to edible rewards.
Public recognition is necessary, motivating, and plain fun. Whether it’s a cash gift or a small thing presented by a bigwig, rewards work.
Dr. Steve Albrecht, PHR, CPP, is a trainer and HR consultant in San Diego, CA. He can be reached at drsteve@drstevealbrecht.com
The Difference Between “Leadership” and “Managership”
The Difference Between “Leadership” and “Managership”
It’s neither easy nor fair to make too many sweeping generalizations when it comes to the way people work in organizations. However, there are some themes as to the differences between manager / supervisor behavior and leadership behavior.
For supervisors who are focused on “managership,” the effort is more on solving the daily problems, working on their own activities, getting others to do their work, and meeting deadlines. The focus is less on staying out of day-to-day conflicts and projects, less on removing obstacles for the employees and the department, and less on setting goals and directions for the group into the future.
For bosses who are task-oriented and present-day focused, it’s more about getting the job done, any way and any how, over delegation, employee empowerment, or employee development.
These types can range from being hands-on bosses (micro-managers, at one extreme); hands-off bosses (missing managers, at the other extreme); or interactive bosses (the best of both approaches).
They tend to stay in a fire-fighting mode, trying to solve daily problems as they erupt. They may lack the desire or confidence to delegate work, fearing their people may not complete these tasks correctly (or that they may exceed expectations and get the credit). They may still feel compelled to do more task-oriented work, because they are less comfortable being away from the results. They may feel overwhelmed by having to solve customer problems or employee conflicts.
For “leadership,” the focus is more on thinking strategically, not operationally. This emphasis says: What problems are we trying to solve? What can I do to help people function more efficiently? Who are my strongest employees? What am I dong to help them grow and develop to the next level? What trends, problems, or opportunities appear on the horizon, not just next quarter, but next year, and the year after that? How will I have to plan to make the best use of our people, budget dollars, materials, resources, and time? What issues, projects, or responsibilities does my boss want me to tackle, solve, or manage? Who can I hire, promote, or transfer out of here, so that we have a diverse, enthusiastic, creative, and cohesive team?
Leaders are future-focused, strategic, big-picture thinkers, who make good use of their existing resources (people, money, and time). They tend to spend more time thinking about how to correctly set the direction of the organization and / or the group and less on day-to-day distractions (i.e., they delegate time-burning conflicts downward, getting involved only when necessary or to be the final arbiter).
They realize the importance of their downstream decisions, as having an impact beyond today, i.e. they seek to create a legacy for themselves or the organization that’s not based on ego, but on results. They actively seek out employees (at every level) who demonstrate an aptitude for their work, so they can offer them more responsibilities, challenges, training, and access to promotion possibilities.
They don’t fear delegation; they make careful use of it by giving employees a chance to grow and learn, even if they make mistakes along the way. They choose certain critical moments to “get their hands dirty” and dive into projects along with the line-level employees. They know when to use this approach to build cohesion and show they are not above working hard.
They make time to communicate with employees, so that people don’t learn important news by accident, via gossip, or the grapevine. They are not afraid to make hard decisions or take risks that others avoid as unsafe, career-threatening, or outside the status quo of the work culture.
They demand accountability and responsibility from all, and they model these traits themselves, especially when it comes to ethics, keeping promises, and “walking their talk.” They know when to be visible and when to stay behind the scenes. Because of their people-oriented style, employees like working with and for them.
Dr. Steve Albrecht, PHR, CPP, is a trainer and HR consultant in San Diego, CA. He can be reached at drsteve@drsteveAlbrecht.com
It’s neither easy nor fair to make too many sweeping generalizations when it comes to the way people work in organizations. However, there are some themes as to the differences between manager / supervisor behavior and leadership behavior.
For supervisors who are focused on “managership,” the effort is more on solving the daily problems, working on their own activities, getting others to do their work, and meeting deadlines. The focus is less on staying out of day-to-day conflicts and projects, less on removing obstacles for the employees and the department, and less on setting goals and directions for the group into the future.
For bosses who are task-oriented and present-day focused, it’s more about getting the job done, any way and any how, over delegation, employee empowerment, or employee development.
These types can range from being hands-on bosses (micro-managers, at one extreme); hands-off bosses (missing managers, at the other extreme); or interactive bosses (the best of both approaches).
They tend to stay in a fire-fighting mode, trying to solve daily problems as they erupt. They may lack the desire or confidence to delegate work, fearing their people may not complete these tasks correctly (or that they may exceed expectations and get the credit). They may still feel compelled to do more task-oriented work, because they are less comfortable being away from the results. They may feel overwhelmed by having to solve customer problems or employee conflicts.
For “leadership,” the focus is more on thinking strategically, not operationally. This emphasis says: What problems are we trying to solve? What can I do to help people function more efficiently? Who are my strongest employees? What am I dong to help them grow and develop to the next level? What trends, problems, or opportunities appear on the horizon, not just next quarter, but next year, and the year after that? How will I have to plan to make the best use of our people, budget dollars, materials, resources, and time? What issues, projects, or responsibilities does my boss want me to tackle, solve, or manage? Who can I hire, promote, or transfer out of here, so that we have a diverse, enthusiastic, creative, and cohesive team?
Leaders are future-focused, strategic, big-picture thinkers, who make good use of their existing resources (people, money, and time). They tend to spend more time thinking about how to correctly set the direction of the organization and / or the group and less on day-to-day distractions (i.e., they delegate time-burning conflicts downward, getting involved only when necessary or to be the final arbiter).
They realize the importance of their downstream decisions, as having an impact beyond today, i.e. they seek to create a legacy for themselves or the organization that’s not based on ego, but on results. They actively seek out employees (at every level) who demonstrate an aptitude for their work, so they can offer them more responsibilities, challenges, training, and access to promotion possibilities.
They don’t fear delegation; they make careful use of it by giving employees a chance to grow and learn, even if they make mistakes along the way. They choose certain critical moments to “get their hands dirty” and dive into projects along with the line-level employees. They know when to use this approach to build cohesion and show they are not above working hard.
They make time to communicate with employees, so that people don’t learn important news by accident, via gossip, or the grapevine. They are not afraid to make hard decisions or take risks that others avoid as unsafe, career-threatening, or outside the status quo of the work culture.
They demand accountability and responsibility from all, and they model these traits themselves, especially when it comes to ethics, keeping promises, and “walking their talk.” They know when to be visible and when to stay behind the scenes. Because of their people-oriented style, employees like working with and for them.
Dr. Steve Albrecht, PHR, CPP, is a trainer and HR consultant in San Diego, CA. He can be reached at drsteve@drsteveAlbrecht.com
Interviewing Applicants to Fit the Work Culture
Interviewing Applicants to Fit the Work Culture
Every opportunity you can get to assess a candidate is a good opportunity. When it comes to hiring, keep the old the 80-20 rule in mind: 80 percent of the questions we tend to ask in interviews focus on the applicant’s “technical” skills; that is, does he or she have the job knowledge, experience, and training necessary to do the work? The other 20 percent of the questions tend to focus on the applicant’s interpersonal skills; that is, can he or she fit into our unique work culture, work with others or alone, on team or individual projects, based on his or her personality meshing well?
Remember that most people who are terminated (actually fired, asked to resign, or leave in lieu of termination) do so because of a bad interpersonal fit, not because they can’t or won’t do the work. This is why probationary hiring periods are so effective; they allow for an appropriate (and legal) assessment of the new employee’s skill sets, willingness to learn, and apparent or missing cohesion in the work team specifically and the organization as a whole.
One company president routinely invites each of his final management choices to his favorite upscale restaurant. He has a running agreement with the wait staff: no matter what the candidate orders for lunch, bring him or her the club sandwich. The idea was to see how people reacted to this small but significant change in their food orders. Did they snap at the waiter and make a scene (too aggressive)? Did they accept the club sandwich stoically and eat it, even though it wasn’t what they ordered (too passive)? Or did they politely remind the waitress of their original selection and ask that it be brought to them (socially appropriate)?
Occasionally, the person would indeed order the club sandwich, in which case this “behavioral lunch” experiment would go slightly awry. Still, the ability to see prospective employees in a social setting, talking with their potential peers, subordinates, and supervisors, can provide useful information that affirms the decision to bring them aboard or pass with reservations.
That being said, any interview process you use must be fair. Many firms use a three-step process for important hires: a structured interview, using the same questions for every applicant, followed by a team or panel interview for those candidates who made the first cut, then concluding with a final, unstructured interview, which can take place in a relatively non-threatening social setting, like meeting the candidate for lunch or coffee.
It may help to see these events as a series of technical and interpersonal “filters,” where the applicant must pass through a series of events designed to invite them in, as opposed to screening them out. The key to avoiding the “I told you so / We guessed wrong” syndrome, which leads to poor hiring decisions, is to create multiple opportunities to see the candidate.
Dr. Steve Albrecht, PHR, CPP, is a trainer and HR consultant in San Diego, CA. He can be reached at drsteve@drsteveAlbrecht.com.
Every opportunity you can get to assess a candidate is a good opportunity. When it comes to hiring, keep the old the 80-20 rule in mind: 80 percent of the questions we tend to ask in interviews focus on the applicant’s “technical” skills; that is, does he or she have the job knowledge, experience, and training necessary to do the work? The other 20 percent of the questions tend to focus on the applicant’s interpersonal skills; that is, can he or she fit into our unique work culture, work with others or alone, on team or individual projects, based on his or her personality meshing well?
Remember that most people who are terminated (actually fired, asked to resign, or leave in lieu of termination) do so because of a bad interpersonal fit, not because they can’t or won’t do the work. This is why probationary hiring periods are so effective; they allow for an appropriate (and legal) assessment of the new employee’s skill sets, willingness to learn, and apparent or missing cohesion in the work team specifically and the organization as a whole.
One company president routinely invites each of his final management choices to his favorite upscale restaurant. He has a running agreement with the wait staff: no matter what the candidate orders for lunch, bring him or her the club sandwich. The idea was to see how people reacted to this small but significant change in their food orders. Did they snap at the waiter and make a scene (too aggressive)? Did they accept the club sandwich stoically and eat it, even though it wasn’t what they ordered (too passive)? Or did they politely remind the waitress of their original selection and ask that it be brought to them (socially appropriate)?
Occasionally, the person would indeed order the club sandwich, in which case this “behavioral lunch” experiment would go slightly awry. Still, the ability to see prospective employees in a social setting, talking with their potential peers, subordinates, and supervisors, can provide useful information that affirms the decision to bring them aboard or pass with reservations.
That being said, any interview process you use must be fair. Many firms use a three-step process for important hires: a structured interview, using the same questions for every applicant, followed by a team or panel interview for those candidates who made the first cut, then concluding with a final, unstructured interview, which can take place in a relatively non-threatening social setting, like meeting the candidate for lunch or coffee.
It may help to see these events as a series of technical and interpersonal “filters,” where the applicant must pass through a series of events designed to invite them in, as opposed to screening them out. The key to avoiding the “I told you so / We guessed wrong” syndrome, which leads to poor hiring decisions, is to create multiple opportunities to see the candidate.
Dr. Steve Albrecht, PHR, CPP, is a trainer and HR consultant in San Diego, CA. He can be reached at drsteve@drsteveAlbrecht.com.
Harassment Prevention Responses
Sexual and Racial Harassment Prevention Responses
Mark Twain said, “Everybody talks about the weather, but no one does anything about it.” As a workplace issue, it’s the same with sexual and racial harassment; everybody thinks they know about it, what not to do in the workplace, and yet, it’s still near the top of the list of complaints filed with or by both the federal and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Sexual and racial harassment prevention or hostile workplace prevention in any organization is about having a policy, training all employees to follow that policy, and then enforcing the policy, using consequences for the perpetrators and support for the victims.
One concept that has helped many organizations is the “first bite of the apple.” The idea behind this approach is that each employee can provide the first reasonable line of defense against sexual harassment, hostile work environments, and protect all concerned from the threat of discipline, termination, or litigation.
Here’s how the “first bite of the apple” idea works to help all employees take ownership of the sexual harassment issue:
1. An employee who is offended by a first-time, low-level harassment or hostile work environment asks the person to stop the behavior immediately, and not do it again. (This takes courage, but it also illustrates the need for setting appropriate boundaries at work, i.e., “That bothers me. Please stop it.”)
2. If the behavior ends, that should solve the problem.
3. If the behavior persists, then the employee must go to his/her supervisor and report the issue.
4. Depending upon the recency, severity, and history of the problem, the supervisor can intervene, using coaching, counseling, or progressive discipline with the offending employee. Or, the supervisor can immediately contact HR for both guidance and support, and to have HR take over any investigative processes necessary to determine if the agency policy was violated.
5. HR’s involvement can bring in more elements of both progressive discipline (written warning, demotion, suspension, etc.) and resolutions (job transfer, EAP counseling, outside coaching, anger management, etc.).
The point to this process is to ask the employees to manage their workplace behavior at the lowest, least-harmful level, before it escalates into a complex, time-consuming, and detrimental process. In other words, “if we act like ladies and gentlemen at work, this problem is not a problem for us.”
California has mandated at least two hours of sexual harassment training for managers and supervisors working in firms with 50 or more employees. This training will need to be completed by the end of this year, so these sessions can offer a good opportunity to explain the “first bite of the apple” concept.
Dr. Steve Albrecht, PHR, CPP, is a trainer and consultant in San Diego, CA. He can be reached at drsteve@drstevealbrecht.com.
Mark Twain said, “Everybody talks about the weather, but no one does anything about it.” As a workplace issue, it’s the same with sexual and racial harassment; everybody thinks they know about it, what not to do in the workplace, and yet, it’s still near the top of the list of complaints filed with or by both the federal and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Sexual and racial harassment prevention or hostile workplace prevention in any organization is about having a policy, training all employees to follow that policy, and then enforcing the policy, using consequences for the perpetrators and support for the victims.
One concept that has helped many organizations is the “first bite of the apple.” The idea behind this approach is that each employee can provide the first reasonable line of defense against sexual harassment, hostile work environments, and protect all concerned from the threat of discipline, termination, or litigation.
Here’s how the “first bite of the apple” idea works to help all employees take ownership of the sexual harassment issue:
1. An employee who is offended by a first-time, low-level harassment or hostile work environment asks the person to stop the behavior immediately, and not do it again. (This takes courage, but it also illustrates the need for setting appropriate boundaries at work, i.e., “That bothers me. Please stop it.”)
2. If the behavior ends, that should solve the problem.
3. If the behavior persists, then the employee must go to his/her supervisor and report the issue.
4. Depending upon the recency, severity, and history of the problem, the supervisor can intervene, using coaching, counseling, or progressive discipline with the offending employee. Or, the supervisor can immediately contact HR for both guidance and support, and to have HR take over any investigative processes necessary to determine if the agency policy was violated.
5. HR’s involvement can bring in more elements of both progressive discipline (written warning, demotion, suspension, etc.) and resolutions (job transfer, EAP counseling, outside coaching, anger management, etc.).
The point to this process is to ask the employees to manage their workplace behavior at the lowest, least-harmful level, before it escalates into a complex, time-consuming, and detrimental process. In other words, “if we act like ladies and gentlemen at work, this problem is not a problem for us.”
California has mandated at least two hours of sexual harassment training for managers and supervisors working in firms with 50 or more employees. This training will need to be completed by the end of this year, so these sessions can offer a good opportunity to explain the “first bite of the apple” concept.
Dr. Steve Albrecht, PHR, CPP, is a trainer and consultant in San Diego, CA. He can be reached at drsteve@drstevealbrecht.com.
Having a Difficult Conversation with an Employee
Having a Difficult Conversation with an Employee
In their book Crucial Conversations, Kerry Patterson and three co-authors discuss how to talk about tough topics with employees. They define “crucial conversations” as those where “opinions vary, stakes are high, and emotions run strong.”
Starting the day with, “Gee, Larry, you stink,” is hardly what any supervisor looks forward to. However, it may help at first to think about the “business impact,” a key concept when it comes the “Big Four” of employee problems: their attendance, behavior, performance, or attitude.
This idea is one that can help both parties to see that the important discussion is not about a personality conflict, retaliation, passive-aggressive behavior, avoidance, or emotions. Rather, the focus centers on what the employee does or doesn’t do, and how the issue at hand impacts the business in a negative way.
It should be a given that this conversation should take place privately. The supervisor can start by saying, “This is an uncomfortable yet necessary part of my job. As hard as this is to talk about, I have some concerns that your body odor is making it hard for other people to be around you. I’ve seen for myself that it’s affecting your co-workers and our vendors and customers in a way that is not good for our business. I’m sure it’s embarrassing for you and it’s not my intention to make you feel worse. Starting right away, I’d like you to follow our dress code and come to work clean and well-groomed. If you have a medical reason for this problem, you can bring me a note from your physician and we’ll discuss how we might accommodate you. If it’s not a medical issue, I’d like you to begin with these changes starting tomorrow.”
Like hygiene concerns, poor attendance hurts the business. Any private conversation about attendance should cover three key areas: specific dates and times the employee has been late, missed work, mismanaged his or her breaks or lunches, or left work early; what other employees have had to do to cover for the late or missing employee (the impact on the business); and what solutions the employee and/or the supervisor can discuss to resolve the issue.
And like hygiene compliance, the employee should begin to follow the attendance policy, using whatever solutions he or she offered or were told by the supervisor.
Any “business impact” discussion should include the consequences for non-compliance, which includes the possibility of progressive discipline.
By focusing on the employee’s behaviors and not using labels (“You smell” or “You’re always late”), and being firm, fair, and consistent, the supervisor and the employee can get through a crucial conversation.
Dr. Steve Albrecht, PHR, CPP, is a trainer and HR consultant in San Diego, CA. He can be reached at drsteve@drstevealbrecht.com
In their book Crucial Conversations, Kerry Patterson and three co-authors discuss how to talk about tough topics with employees. They define “crucial conversations” as those where “opinions vary, stakes are high, and emotions run strong.”
Starting the day with, “Gee, Larry, you stink,” is hardly what any supervisor looks forward to. However, it may help at first to think about the “business impact,” a key concept when it comes the “Big Four” of employee problems: their attendance, behavior, performance, or attitude.
This idea is one that can help both parties to see that the important discussion is not about a personality conflict, retaliation, passive-aggressive behavior, avoidance, or emotions. Rather, the focus centers on what the employee does or doesn’t do, and how the issue at hand impacts the business in a negative way.
It should be a given that this conversation should take place privately. The supervisor can start by saying, “This is an uncomfortable yet necessary part of my job. As hard as this is to talk about, I have some concerns that your body odor is making it hard for other people to be around you. I’ve seen for myself that it’s affecting your co-workers and our vendors and customers in a way that is not good for our business. I’m sure it’s embarrassing for you and it’s not my intention to make you feel worse. Starting right away, I’d like you to follow our dress code and come to work clean and well-groomed. If you have a medical reason for this problem, you can bring me a note from your physician and we’ll discuss how we might accommodate you. If it’s not a medical issue, I’d like you to begin with these changes starting tomorrow.”
Like hygiene concerns, poor attendance hurts the business. Any private conversation about attendance should cover three key areas: specific dates and times the employee has been late, missed work, mismanaged his or her breaks or lunches, or left work early; what other employees have had to do to cover for the late or missing employee (the impact on the business); and what solutions the employee and/or the supervisor can discuss to resolve the issue.
And like hygiene compliance, the employee should begin to follow the attendance policy, using whatever solutions he or she offered or were told by the supervisor.
Any “business impact” discussion should include the consequences for non-compliance, which includes the possibility of progressive discipline.
By focusing on the employee’s behaviors and not using labels (“You smell” or “You’re always late”), and being firm, fair, and consistent, the supervisor and the employee can get through a crucial conversation.
Dr. Steve Albrecht, PHR, CPP, is a trainer and HR consultant in San Diego, CA. He can be reached at drsteve@drstevealbrecht.com
Mass Murders at Home and Work
Mass Murders at Home and Work: When Will It Ever End?
It started Christmas Eve 2008, when Bruce Pardo rang the doorbell at the home of his ex-wife’s parents in Covina, CA. Wearing a custom-made Santa Claus suit and holding a gun and his own homemade flame thrower, Pardo began a rampage that lasted less than two minutes.
When he was done, he had shot an eight year-old girl in the face, killed nine other people in the home, including his ultimate target, his ex-wife. When he sprayed the family room with gasoline from his pressurized device, flames from two fireplaces ignited the walls and burned the two-story house to the ground. Pardo’s subsequent suicide left the usual unanswered questions. Why? What could have been done to stop him? Who did he tell or what did others know prior to his actions?
If T.S. Eliot said that “April is the cruelest month,” then this past March 2009 was certainly been one of our deadliest.
It began on March 8, not with a mass murder, but with the death of a man of faith. Rev. Fred Winters was preaching to the congregation of his Maryville, IL Baptist church, when a gunman walked up and killed him with four shots.
On March 10, Michael McLendon killed 10 people, across two rural Alabama counties, including his mother and four other relatives. After a running gun battle with police, he shot himself inside a factory where he had once worked.
On March 11, 17 year-old Tim Kretschmer returned to his former high school in Winnenden, Germany, and started shooting. By the time he had fired 112 rounds from the 9mm pistol taken from his father’s collection, 16 were dead (including nine women), and then his final target, himself.
On March 21, four Oakland police officers were shot to death by parolee Lovelle Mixon, following a traffic stop and a subsequent SWAT mission. Mixon was a suspect in the February rape of a 12 year-old who lived in his neighborhood. He was wanted for a parole hold and may have known the police had tied his DNA to the child rape.
On March 24, San Diego Transit employee Lonnie Glasco shot and killed a foreman and a fellow mechanic in the early hours of the morning, just after his shift had ended. Glasco was killed by San Diego Police after he called his father, apparently to say goodbye, and then pointed his gun at the responding officers.
On March 29, Robert Stewart shot and killed seven patients and a nurse at the Pinelake Health and Rehab Center in Carthage, NC. Police believe he was looking to kill his wife, who worked at the facility. The lone officer on duty in the town of Carthage killed Stewart before he could kill more people.
On that same day in Santa Clara, CA, Devan Kalathat shot and killed his two kids, three other relatives, wounded his wife, and killed himself.
And a few days into April 2009, a man went into the American Civic Center in Binghamton, NY and killed 12 people and then himself.
So 57 people died in March at the hands of gunmen who felt helpless and hopeless, sad and angry, and so in need of revenge, that this was their only viable choice.
Both the FBI and the U.S. Secret Service have researched previous similar cases of mass murder, domestic violence “familicides,” and workplace violence homicides. They conclude that it’s not so-called “profiles” that are useful in understanding these horrific crimes (as if we ever really could), but the simple equation of motive plus opportunity.
But it’s not that easy, is it? Motive is not always visible before or after the event. These people rarely leave a diary, a note, or any (rational or otherwise) explanation that allow their own humiliated families and the victims’ relatives much opportunity for real closure.
Motive is not much of a concern for the violence-beleaguered nation of Israel. Friends who live with the threat of bus bombings and coffee shop explosions tell me they really don’t care about why the suicidal and homicidal men or women did what they did. “They’re crazy and they hate us,” is their world-weary refrain.
Interrupting the opportunity, it seems, might allow those around the potential mass murderer to put a stop to his or her evil actions at the planning stage. This includes concerned (and often estranged) family members, friends, or acquaintances, family physicians or mental health clinicians, security professionals, or law enforcement members who have occasional or frequent contact with these people over a span of time, and who may be able to put their behaviors into context.
We will never understand the motive of a school, church, mall, workplace, or family murderer. And even if we know the motive in the aftermath, what good does it do us in terms of preventing a similar “copycat” event in the future?
School officials, police, and violence prevention professionals cringe throughout the month of April every year anyway, thinking back to the number of campus shooting incidents that have occurred during our fourth month, including the Virginia Tech murders and the touchstone for school violence, Columbine High School.
Like many matters of life and death, the solutions to the problem of mass, family, or unthinkable murderers (as with the death on the pulpit of Rev. Winters) are many, complex, and not always viable in a society that respects its freedoms, civil liberties, and ownership of firearms.
Is it about more restrictive gun control laws or more freedoms for the public to arm themselves against predators? Is it about more and better mental heath care, screening, and intervention tools or protocols? Or is it about families or friends having the absolute courage to report suspicious behaviors to law enforcement officials, who will then act on them?
Or is it about more restrictions on our freedoms, like metal detectors at the mall, armed security at your church, or ID badges at your child’s daycare center?
Or is it really about the perpetrators themselves, choosing a better option for what they must see as living miserable lives? Does a heart of darkness live in every human? Perhaps. But when the few can take up arms and frighten the many, in search of their own version of peace, we are all affected. If we’re afraid to go to our workplaces, our malls, our churches, our restaurants, send our kids to their schools, or attend holiday parties, then these gunmen have taken something precious from all of our lives, even if we never knew them at all.
Dr. Steve Albrecht, PHR, CPP is a San Diego-based author and security consultant. He can be reached at drsteve@drstevealbrecht.com
It started Christmas Eve 2008, when Bruce Pardo rang the doorbell at the home of his ex-wife’s parents in Covina, CA. Wearing a custom-made Santa Claus suit and holding a gun and his own homemade flame thrower, Pardo began a rampage that lasted less than two minutes.
When he was done, he had shot an eight year-old girl in the face, killed nine other people in the home, including his ultimate target, his ex-wife. When he sprayed the family room with gasoline from his pressurized device, flames from two fireplaces ignited the walls and burned the two-story house to the ground. Pardo’s subsequent suicide left the usual unanswered questions. Why? What could have been done to stop him? Who did he tell or what did others know prior to his actions?
If T.S. Eliot said that “April is the cruelest month,” then this past March 2009 was certainly been one of our deadliest.
It began on March 8, not with a mass murder, but with the death of a man of faith. Rev. Fred Winters was preaching to the congregation of his Maryville, IL Baptist church, when a gunman walked up and killed him with four shots.
On March 10, Michael McLendon killed 10 people, across two rural Alabama counties, including his mother and four other relatives. After a running gun battle with police, he shot himself inside a factory where he had once worked.
On March 11, 17 year-old Tim Kretschmer returned to his former high school in Winnenden, Germany, and started shooting. By the time he had fired 112 rounds from the 9mm pistol taken from his father’s collection, 16 were dead (including nine women), and then his final target, himself.
On March 21, four Oakland police officers were shot to death by parolee Lovelle Mixon, following a traffic stop and a subsequent SWAT mission. Mixon was a suspect in the February rape of a 12 year-old who lived in his neighborhood. He was wanted for a parole hold and may have known the police had tied his DNA to the child rape.
On March 24, San Diego Transit employee Lonnie Glasco shot and killed a foreman and a fellow mechanic in the early hours of the morning, just after his shift had ended. Glasco was killed by San Diego Police after he called his father, apparently to say goodbye, and then pointed his gun at the responding officers.
On March 29, Robert Stewart shot and killed seven patients and a nurse at the Pinelake Health and Rehab Center in Carthage, NC. Police believe he was looking to kill his wife, who worked at the facility. The lone officer on duty in the town of Carthage killed Stewart before he could kill more people.
On that same day in Santa Clara, CA, Devan Kalathat shot and killed his two kids, three other relatives, wounded his wife, and killed himself.
And a few days into April 2009, a man went into the American Civic Center in Binghamton, NY and killed 12 people and then himself.
So 57 people died in March at the hands of gunmen who felt helpless and hopeless, sad and angry, and so in need of revenge, that this was their only viable choice.
Both the FBI and the U.S. Secret Service have researched previous similar cases of mass murder, domestic violence “familicides,” and workplace violence homicides. They conclude that it’s not so-called “profiles” that are useful in understanding these horrific crimes (as if we ever really could), but the simple equation of motive plus opportunity.
But it’s not that easy, is it? Motive is not always visible before or after the event. These people rarely leave a diary, a note, or any (rational or otherwise) explanation that allow their own humiliated families and the victims’ relatives much opportunity for real closure.
Motive is not much of a concern for the violence-beleaguered nation of Israel. Friends who live with the threat of bus bombings and coffee shop explosions tell me they really don’t care about why the suicidal and homicidal men or women did what they did. “They’re crazy and they hate us,” is their world-weary refrain.
Interrupting the opportunity, it seems, might allow those around the potential mass murderer to put a stop to his or her evil actions at the planning stage. This includes concerned (and often estranged) family members, friends, or acquaintances, family physicians or mental health clinicians, security professionals, or law enforcement members who have occasional or frequent contact with these people over a span of time, and who may be able to put their behaviors into context.
We will never understand the motive of a school, church, mall, workplace, or family murderer. And even if we know the motive in the aftermath, what good does it do us in terms of preventing a similar “copycat” event in the future?
School officials, police, and violence prevention professionals cringe throughout the month of April every year anyway, thinking back to the number of campus shooting incidents that have occurred during our fourth month, including the Virginia Tech murders and the touchstone for school violence, Columbine High School.
Like many matters of life and death, the solutions to the problem of mass, family, or unthinkable murderers (as with the death on the pulpit of Rev. Winters) are many, complex, and not always viable in a society that respects its freedoms, civil liberties, and ownership of firearms.
Is it about more restrictive gun control laws or more freedoms for the public to arm themselves against predators? Is it about more and better mental heath care, screening, and intervention tools or protocols? Or is it about families or friends having the absolute courage to report suspicious behaviors to law enforcement officials, who will then act on them?
Or is it about more restrictions on our freedoms, like metal detectors at the mall, armed security at your church, or ID badges at your child’s daycare center?
Or is it really about the perpetrators themselves, choosing a better option for what they must see as living miserable lives? Does a heart of darkness live in every human? Perhaps. But when the few can take up arms and frighten the many, in search of their own version of peace, we are all affected. If we’re afraid to go to our workplaces, our malls, our churches, our restaurants, send our kids to their schools, or attend holiday parties, then these gunmen have taken something precious from all of our lives, even if we never knew them at all.
Dr. Steve Albrecht, PHR, CPP is a San Diego-based author and security consultant. He can be reached at drsteve@drstevealbrecht.com
The Dr. Gates – Sgt. Crowley Collision at Harvard: A Lesson in Context
The meeting between Dr. Henry Louis Gates and Sgt. James Crowley at the White House certainly served its function, which seems to be an effort at closure. Perhaps the summit helped both men clear their air, in front of two highly-interested spectators/moderators, in President Obama and Vice President Biden.
As a retired police sergeant myself, and the author of five tactical books on police officer safety, I always look on these events where racial profiling is the concern, by thinking about the context in which most police officers function. In nearly every situation, the thoughts in the back of their minds are usually oriented around two basic fears: Will I be hurt or killed in this encounter? Will I have my authority questioned?
The first issue is basic human survival. Everyone already knows what the police officer does for a living; it's on display. The officer doesn't know what the person he or she is contacting has done or wants to do, in terms of criminal activity. Further, the person being stopped or contacted may have just done something that he is certain the officer already knows about, and the cop is there to arrest him for it. The officer may not know what just happened and when the suspect responds with violence to escape, hurt, or kill the officer, it comes as a shock.
We saw this in Oakland in April 2009 when the suspect who shot and killed the two Oakland PD motor officers (and later killed two SWAT officers in a barricaded apartment), thought they were there to arrest him for the rape of a 12 year-old child, where his DNA just came back with a match and the warrant was being put into the system.
So Fear #1 is the fear of death, since there is always at least one gun at ever police contact (his or her own service weapon).
Fear #2 is connected to the officer's use of authority. The vast majority of people, when stopped by the police, comply with the officer's requests for information or ID. Most people pull over when the red lights come on; most people stop when the officer asks them a question. A small number of people resist immediately or defy the officer's legal authority to stop them. This creates tremendous tension in the officer. Because so many people comply, when someone doesn't, the officer is usually temporarily shocked, and when he or she recovers, he or she often responds with a level of anger, force, or the need to overly-exert authority to remind the other person who is really in charge. If people ran away or drove away at high speeds every time the cops tried to stop them, we would have anarchy in the world.
Most people comply, even hard street crooks, who know the process. When Dr. Gates didn't cooperate and played the "don't you know who I am?" game, Sgt. Crowley may have responded with Fear #1 (Is this guy a burglar trying to break into this house?) and Fear #2 (Why is this guy defying my legal authority to question him about what is going on?).
The collision between these two fears is prevalent in law enforcement, especially when backing down from a confrontation (something men aren't great at anyway), is not rewarded in police work. A long-term study by the FBI concluded what many cops already know: Officer Friendly gets killed by opportunistic crooks who seem him or her as weak; Officer Aggressive gets injured or killed, because everything turns into a battle; and Officer Assertive lives to work another day because he or she knows the difference between too little authority and too much.
Both of these guys painted themselves into a corner on the day in question. Understanding context is critical in law enforcement and I hope, at Harvard.
Dr. Steve Albrecht, PHR, CPP is a San Diego-based speaker and writer on high-risk HR and security issues. He can be reached at drsteve@drstevealbrecht.com.
The meeting between Dr. Henry Louis Gates and Sgt. James Crowley at the White House certainly served its function, which seems to be an effort at closure. Perhaps the summit helped both men clear their air, in front of two highly-interested spectators/moderators, in President Obama and Vice President Biden.
As a retired police sergeant myself, and the author of five tactical books on police officer safety, I always look on these events where racial profiling is the concern, by thinking about the context in which most police officers function. In nearly every situation, the thoughts in the back of their minds are usually oriented around two basic fears: Will I be hurt or killed in this encounter? Will I have my authority questioned?
The first issue is basic human survival. Everyone already knows what the police officer does for a living; it's on display. The officer doesn't know what the person he or she is contacting has done or wants to do, in terms of criminal activity. Further, the person being stopped or contacted may have just done something that he is certain the officer already knows about, and the cop is there to arrest him for it. The officer may not know what just happened and when the suspect responds with violence to escape, hurt, or kill the officer, it comes as a shock.
We saw this in Oakland in April 2009 when the suspect who shot and killed the two Oakland PD motor officers (and later killed two SWAT officers in a barricaded apartment), thought they were there to arrest him for the rape of a 12 year-old child, where his DNA just came back with a match and the warrant was being put into the system.
So Fear #1 is the fear of death, since there is always at least one gun at ever police contact (his or her own service weapon).
Fear #2 is connected to the officer's use of authority. The vast majority of people, when stopped by the police, comply with the officer's requests for information or ID. Most people pull over when the red lights come on; most people stop when the officer asks them a question. A small number of people resist immediately or defy the officer's legal authority to stop them. This creates tremendous tension in the officer. Because so many people comply, when someone doesn't, the officer is usually temporarily shocked, and when he or she recovers, he or she often responds with a level of anger, force, or the need to overly-exert authority to remind the other person who is really in charge. If people ran away or drove away at high speeds every time the cops tried to stop them, we would have anarchy in the world.
Most people comply, even hard street crooks, who know the process. When Dr. Gates didn't cooperate and played the "don't you know who I am?" game, Sgt. Crowley may have responded with Fear #1 (Is this guy a burglar trying to break into this house?) and Fear #2 (Why is this guy defying my legal authority to question him about what is going on?).
The collision between these two fears is prevalent in law enforcement, especially when backing down from a confrontation (something men aren't great at anyway), is not rewarded in police work. A long-term study by the FBI concluded what many cops already know: Officer Friendly gets killed by opportunistic crooks who seem him or her as weak; Officer Aggressive gets injured or killed, because everything turns into a battle; and Officer Assertive lives to work another day because he or she knows the difference between too little authority and too much.
Both of these guys painted themselves into a corner on the day in question. Understanding context is critical in law enforcement and I hope, at Harvard.
Dr. Steve Albrecht, PHR, CPP is a San Diego-based speaker and writer on high-risk HR and security issues. He can be reached at drsteve@drstevealbrecht.com.
Coaching Your Employees
Coaching employees is about goal-setting for their new or continued achievements, helping them take different and more positive steps, building momentum toward process, productivity, or behavioral improvements, trusting intuition (on both sides), and helping them create different results.
Sometimes, your employees fit into one of these four broad types.
The Smart Slacker – This employee has been there a long time, has “retired on duty,” and no longer wants to break a sweat. He or she knows how to do the work but doesn’t really want to. These employees appear to work hard when the boss is around. They have lots of knowledge and could make a real and valuable contribution because of their history, experience, and hidden skills. Motivation is the problem here.
The Problem Child – There are two possibilities here: acute problem employees (good worker who suddenly develop serious off-the-job problems) or chronic problem employees (who have been difficult since Hire Day One). Acute PC’s should be offered support, access to counseling, and an Individual Development / Performance Improvement Plan. Chronic PC’s should be given progressive discipline, last warnings, and then termination notices.
The Plow Horse – This is a good worker, who does the job he/she is paid to do, but without much imagination. They lack either the ability or the desire to use creative problem solving. They get passable evaluations and are largely happy doing what they were hired to do. It may be they are fearful of the stress and responsibility of advancement, so they won’t look for career help. Teaching them the skill of option-thinking can help a lot.
The Rising Star – They are easy to delegate to, usually love more responsibility, and work hard without being asked / reminded. They go the extra mile to earn exceptional evaluations. It’s possible and likely supervisors can burn these people out with too much work, too much autonomy, and not enough reward. Good coaches will get them on to a career path that plays to their strengths and improves their weaknesses.
The following points can help accelerate your process with each of these four:
Don’t wait until the Performance Review process to request performance or behavioral changes.
Hold “Personal Accountability Meetings” with all employees on a regular basis, not just during Performance Reviews.
Script out your main points and refer to your notes during the meeting. These discussions can be stressful; prepare yourself with notes and talking points in advance.
Smart Slackers – Confront their behavior, attitude, or performance. Remind them of their “legacy employee” status. Ask for their help in creating solutions you both can live with.
Problem Children – Use your progressive discipline process. Ask them to make a stay/go choice, as in, “You seem unhappy here and I’m not happy with your performance. Is this a job you really want?”
Plow Horses – Encourage them to use option-thinking to problem-solve. Reward their progress in this area, no matter how small it seems at first. They will grow with more praise for their efforts in thinking outside the box.
Rising Stars – Give them challenges but watch for job burnout. Create a career path that offers them opportunities for advancement.
Dr. Steve Albrecht, PHR, CPP, is a trainer, speaker, and consultant in San Diego, CA. He can be reached at drsteve@drstevealbrecht.com.
Coaching employees is about goal-setting for their new or continued achievements, helping them take different and more positive steps, building momentum toward process, productivity, or behavioral improvements, trusting intuition (on both sides), and helping them create different results.
Sometimes, your employees fit into one of these four broad types.
The Smart Slacker – This employee has been there a long time, has “retired on duty,” and no longer wants to break a sweat. He or she knows how to do the work but doesn’t really want to. These employees appear to work hard when the boss is around. They have lots of knowledge and could make a real and valuable contribution because of their history, experience, and hidden skills. Motivation is the problem here.
The Problem Child – There are two possibilities here: acute problem employees (good worker who suddenly develop serious off-the-job problems) or chronic problem employees (who have been difficult since Hire Day One). Acute PC’s should be offered support, access to counseling, and an Individual Development / Performance Improvement Plan. Chronic PC’s should be given progressive discipline, last warnings, and then termination notices.
The Plow Horse – This is a good worker, who does the job he/she is paid to do, but without much imagination. They lack either the ability or the desire to use creative problem solving. They get passable evaluations and are largely happy doing what they were hired to do. It may be they are fearful of the stress and responsibility of advancement, so they won’t look for career help. Teaching them the skill of option-thinking can help a lot.
The Rising Star – They are easy to delegate to, usually love more responsibility, and work hard without being asked / reminded. They go the extra mile to earn exceptional evaluations. It’s possible and likely supervisors can burn these people out with too much work, too much autonomy, and not enough reward. Good coaches will get them on to a career path that plays to their strengths and improves their weaknesses.
The following points can help accelerate your process with each of these four:
Don’t wait until the Performance Review process to request performance or behavioral changes.
Hold “Personal Accountability Meetings” with all employees on a regular basis, not just during Performance Reviews.
Script out your main points and refer to your notes during the meeting. These discussions can be stressful; prepare yourself with notes and talking points in advance.
Smart Slackers – Confront their behavior, attitude, or performance. Remind them of their “legacy employee” status. Ask for their help in creating solutions you both can live with.
Problem Children – Use your progressive discipline process. Ask them to make a stay/go choice, as in, “You seem unhappy here and I’m not happy with your performance. Is this a job you really want?”
Plow Horses – Encourage them to use option-thinking to problem-solve. Reward their progress in this area, no matter how small it seems at first. They will grow with more praise for their efforts in thinking outside the box.
Rising Stars – Give them challenges but watch for job burnout. Create a career path that offers them opportunities for advancement.
Dr. Steve Albrecht, PHR, CPP, is a trainer, speaker, and consultant in San Diego, CA. He can be reached at drsteve@drstevealbrecht.com.
Dealing with "The Champion" at Work
Dealing with the “Champion” at Work: The Need for Management Courage
If you own a business or have managed employees as part of your work, perhaps the following scenario is uncomfortably familiar: An employee (of either gender) is walking down the hallway, coffee cup in hand, when he or she hears two co-workers telling some jokes across the room. These jokes certainly aren’t raunchy, but they are a little edgy.
The two co-workers aren’t shouting their jokes; they’re using whispered tones. The passing employee has to strain to hear the punchline, but he or she has picked up enough of the context to be outraged. His or her next stop is your office, where the story comes out in full detail that the office has become the dreaded “hostile work environment.”
This employee sees similar injustices everywhere. (I worked with a woman who kept careful track of the number of times people cursed. If she had worked for me, I would’ve said, “We need to give you more to do.”) The events they witness range from playful banter between two longtime friends, mild flirting between consenting single adults on their lunch breaks, or practical jokes that are fun and funny, without crossing the line of being offensive.
Certain employees who see these things can become the self-appointed “champions” of appropriate behavior in the office. They wear out a literal path to the Human Resources office. They corner every manager, supervisor, or senior executive and rail about the unfair treatment, the hostile work environment, and the certain fact that management is “allowing” these behaviors to take place, to the detriment of all employees who simply want to work in a safe and comfortable place.
Not surprisingly, the “champion” is none too popular at work. Because he or she goes around as the self-selected behavior monitor, co-workers can go deathly silent when the “champion” walks in the room. People who don’t like or trust the “champion” reduce their conversations to “good morning,” “How was lunch?,” and “See you tomorrow.”
The ironic part is that while the “champion” is a great observer of the foibles of others, he or she is not a good employee. And the “champion’s” supervisor has to walk a delicate balance when confronting his or her poor work. Any attempt to write a performance improvement plan or any type of written corrective notice, is met with howls of protest that because the “champion” has blown the whistle, the supervisor is therefore retaliating against him or her.
So what’s the solution? How do you successfully manage the “champions” and their entitlements? How do you confront their poor performance, coupled with the distraction techniques they employ to deny their ineptitude? How do you talk to them about behavior or attitude issues, without thinking you’re going to get sued after every conversation?
The solution to managing the “champion” is a simple challenge: use management courage. We can define these rare skills as both the ability and the desire to have the necessary crucial conversations with the “champions.” Courageous business leaders will say this, “I’m sorry what you heard or saw seemed offensive to you. I disagree that it violates our harassment prevention policies. Our company is careful to evaluate the behavior and performance of every employee. Not everything that goes on here is aimed directly or indirectly at you. I want you to focus on your specific work tasks and activities and simply stop worrying about everyone else. As your boss, I have the right to evaluate your work performance. That’s what I will focus on, so if you see negative marks on your appraisal, know that it has to do with deficiencies I see in either your work performance, attendance, attitude, or violation of our policies. Don’t take this personally; we are having a business conversation. Please go back to work. I will pay attention to our issues here; I want you to pay attention to your own work.”
The tool of choice for the courageous manager is coaching. We define coaching as a mutual, non-disciplinary, performance-focused conversation. Courageous managers can initiate as many coaching conversations as necessary, until they don’t see any changes, which is when they know to switch to progressive discipline.
Dealing with the”champion” by using coaching is paradoxical. The courageous manager knows he or she will have to spend more time with the “champion,” not less. The “champion” will require more meetings, more goal-setting, and more interactions with the supervisor, not less, even though there is the natural human tendency to want to avoid what can be a series of draining conversations.
Workplace “champions” think they win when they are given generous severance or retirement packages to leave, promotions or transfers they don’t deserve, or are allowed to continue to bully their co-workers into submission. The business owner or manager who stands his or he ground can fight the “champion’s” poor performance, disruptive behavior, and entitled attitude with consequences, coaching, and courage.
Dr. Steve Albrecht, PHR, CPP, is a trainer, speaker, and consultant in San Diego, CA. He can be reached at drsteve@drstevealbrecht.com.
If you own a business or have managed employees as part of your work, perhaps the following scenario is uncomfortably familiar: An employee (of either gender) is walking down the hallway, coffee cup in hand, when he or she hears two co-workers telling some jokes across the room. These jokes certainly aren’t raunchy, but they are a little edgy.
The two co-workers aren’t shouting their jokes; they’re using whispered tones. The passing employee has to strain to hear the punchline, but he or she has picked up enough of the context to be outraged. His or her next stop is your office, where the story comes out in full detail that the office has become the dreaded “hostile work environment.”
This employee sees similar injustices everywhere. (I worked with a woman who kept careful track of the number of times people cursed. If she had worked for me, I would’ve said, “We need to give you more to do.”) The events they witness range from playful banter between two longtime friends, mild flirting between consenting single adults on their lunch breaks, or practical jokes that are fun and funny, without crossing the line of being offensive.
Certain employees who see these things can become the self-appointed “champions” of appropriate behavior in the office. They wear out a literal path to the Human Resources office. They corner every manager, supervisor, or senior executive and rail about the unfair treatment, the hostile work environment, and the certain fact that management is “allowing” these behaviors to take place, to the detriment of all employees who simply want to work in a safe and comfortable place.
Not surprisingly, the “champion” is none too popular at work. Because he or she goes around as the self-selected behavior monitor, co-workers can go deathly silent when the “champion” walks in the room. People who don’t like or trust the “champion” reduce their conversations to “good morning,” “How was lunch?,” and “See you tomorrow.”
The ironic part is that while the “champion” is a great observer of the foibles of others, he or she is not a good employee. And the “champion’s” supervisor has to walk a delicate balance when confronting his or her poor work. Any attempt to write a performance improvement plan or any type of written corrective notice, is met with howls of protest that because the “champion” has blown the whistle, the supervisor is therefore retaliating against him or her.
So what’s the solution? How do you successfully manage the “champions” and their entitlements? How do you confront their poor performance, coupled with the distraction techniques they employ to deny their ineptitude? How do you talk to them about behavior or attitude issues, without thinking you’re going to get sued after every conversation?
The solution to managing the “champion” is a simple challenge: use management courage. We can define these rare skills as both the ability and the desire to have the necessary crucial conversations with the “champions.” Courageous business leaders will say this, “I’m sorry what you heard or saw seemed offensive to you. I disagree that it violates our harassment prevention policies. Our company is careful to evaluate the behavior and performance of every employee. Not everything that goes on here is aimed directly or indirectly at you. I want you to focus on your specific work tasks and activities and simply stop worrying about everyone else. As your boss, I have the right to evaluate your work performance. That’s what I will focus on, so if you see negative marks on your appraisal, know that it has to do with deficiencies I see in either your work performance, attendance, attitude, or violation of our policies. Don’t take this personally; we are having a business conversation. Please go back to work. I will pay attention to our issues here; I want you to pay attention to your own work.”
The tool of choice for the courageous manager is coaching. We define coaching as a mutual, non-disciplinary, performance-focused conversation. Courageous managers can initiate as many coaching conversations as necessary, until they don’t see any changes, which is when they know to switch to progressive discipline.
Dealing with the”champion” by using coaching is paradoxical. The courageous manager knows he or she will have to spend more time with the “champion,” not less. The “champion” will require more meetings, more goal-setting, and more interactions with the supervisor, not less, even though there is the natural human tendency to want to avoid what can be a series of draining conversations.
Workplace “champions” think they win when they are given generous severance or retirement packages to leave, promotions or transfers they don’t deserve, or are allowed to continue to bully their co-workers into submission. The business owner or manager who stands his or he ground can fight the “champion’s” poor performance, disruptive behavior, and entitled attitude with consequences, coaching, and courage.
Dr. Steve Albrecht, PHR, CPP, is a trainer, speaker, and consultant in San Diego, CA. He can be reached at drsteve@drstevealbrecht.com.
The California Megan’s Law Database Loophole
The rape and murder of 17 year-old Chelsea King in San Diego last week, allegedly at the hands of a convicted sex offender, reminds us all of the fragility of life. She was alive and vibrant one afternoon, and dead by nightfall, all because of a man who should still be in prison for his previous sexual assault and beating of a 13 year-old.
As of December 2004, anyone in California with access to a computer can go online to the Megan’s Law web site. This ability, of course, follows the legislative responses to the rape and murder of seven year-old New Jersey girl Megan Kanka, and a national series of horrific, tragic, and life-altering sexually-oriented crimes, where sexual predators assaulted and/or killed the children and adults who were unlucky enough to cross their paths.
All states have their own versions of our Megan’s Law databases, all created with the intention of helping people recognize or identify those men who have been convicted of certain sexually-related criminal offenses. (It’s no surprise women are hugely underrepresented as sexual predators, for various protective, behavioral, and biological reasons.)
California, being one of the leaders in deviance and deviant behavior, has not been registering sex offenders for very long; only since 1947. (Add your own thoughts here, if you are pleased or surprised that we have been keeping track of sex offenders for over 60 years, and yet these crimes continue.) And despite these efforts, as cases of kidnap, rape, and murder, in this state and around the country, continues, the various criminal justice, mental health, and correctional systems surrounding these offenders are shown as far from perfect.
Due to the obsessional nature of their disease (affliction, illness, or however the mental health and criminal justice professionals label it), the fear of sexual recidivism is constant. As many longitudinal studies suggest, the re-offend / re-arrest rate for these people, fresh from prison or a prison hospital, is 75 percent or higher. Those seem like great odds if you’re betting on the Super Bowl in Vegas, but lousy ones if you found your child with an offender who swears he has “seen the light,” found religion, or somehow realized the error of his previous malevolent ways.
The mere existence of a database filled with people who have already demonstrated extremely poor sexual, social, and behavioral boundaries points to a sad reality in society. These people and their crimes are not new; sex crimes have been around as long as sex. Taking adults and children by force and sexually abusing their bodies (not to mention scarring their psyches) has been around since we populated the caves. The fact that we have collected them electronically does not prevent their crimes from happening into the future.
So what is my major complaint about the Megan’s Law databases? As a security expert and an HR professional, I’d like to see our Golden State legislators remove a single, yet critical, word from the existing statute: “Section 290.46(j)(2) expressly prohibits the use of information disclosed on the website for purposes relating to health insurance, insurance, loans, credit, employment, education, housing, or benefits, privileges, or services, provided by any business establishment.” Delete the word “employment” from the statute and employers can get back the power to protect their own firms as they see fit.
If you can’t use the fact that a job applicant to your business is on a sex offender database, to make a safe hiring decision, then what is the purpose of knowing in the first place? You can’t unring that bell once it sounds. Let’s ask our legislators to have the guts to allow concerned HR professionals, hiring managers, and small business owners to use the knowledge of an applicant on the Megan’s Law database as criteria for not hiring that individual.
If we continue as it stands now, as one labor law attorney has put it, “We have made convicted sex offenders a ‘protected class.’”
According to California law, the statute says that authorized users can access the web site’s information “only to protect a person at risk,’ who is defined by Penal Code section 290.45(a)(8) as a person who`is or may be exposed to a risk of becoming a victim of a sex offense committed by the offender.’”
Should a business owner or manager have the right to say to an applicant, “Based on the fact that you are on a verified database for sexual offenders, we choose not to hire you”? Before the civil libertarians rise up in anger, we already know that we can ask the applicant about criminal convictions (not arrests) during the interview process. And according to the US Department of Labor, we can weigh the existence of a conviction using three criteria: the nature of the crime, how long ago it happened, and the nature of the applicant’s work with regard to the crime and his/her contact with employees, customers, taxpayers, patients, students, vendors, etc.
It’s perfectly reasonable to say that a man convicted once for drunk driving in 1980 should be allowed to drive a school bus if he has had no other traffic, substance abuse, or behavioral issues since that date. A similar conviction in 2008 should disqualify him for the job.
The problem with sex offenders is that there is a good reason they are now classified and categorized on-line as such; they recidivate, they re-offend, they re-harm, even after many years of “being clean and sober” from deviant sexual behavior (to mix the 12-step metaphor a bit).
Here’s a typical employment scenario to consider: a man works as a maintenance employee at an apartment complex that houses families. As a result of his previous sex crime conviction, he was put on probation and labeled (per California Penal Code) as a “290 registrant.” So while he may have completed his probation period (which barred him from contact with kids, loitering near a school, or whatever the restrictions spelled out), he still has to register as a sex offender, five days before or after his birthday, at the local police or sheriff’s station in the county where he lives, for life.
So while the Probation Department may be done with him, the State of California (and other states, if he moves), is not.
Let’s say there was no background check done on him to get his current position at the apartment complex; or he was never asked and didn’t tell. By all accounts, he is a good employee, with no performance or behavioral problems.
A resident in the complex gets curious about him and decides to look for him in the Megan’s Law database and discovers him there. Afraid for herself and her kids, she reports her findings to the management company of the apartment complex. What should they do? They cannot fire him for not revealing he is a 290 registrant. They cannot fire him for being a 290 registrant. They cannot fire him “for-cause” – a violation of policy or procedures, an attendance problem, an attitude problem, or a work performance problem. They cannot fire him.
To put it in streetside legal terms, the management company is screwed.
Company lawyers would advise them to monitor his work performance, watch his behavior around co-workers and residents, and keep a weather eye out for any signs of problems. That’s fine, right up until he sexually assaults a woman or child, and then it’s too late to be vigilant.
If we fire him, thinks the management company, he sues us for wrongful termination. If we keep him and he assaults someone in the apartment complex, the victim and/or the family sues us for hiring or continuing to employ him. Once again, to put it in streetside legal terms, the management company is screwed.
This issue of not using the Megan’s Law database as a judgmental criterion for employment prevents employers from making business decisions that affect their companies, their employees, and those they provide services to. If a hiring manager wants to hire a 290 registrant to work in his factory, he can. If a woman running a dry cleaning shop wants to hire a 290 registrant to work the front counter, she can. But if either of those people think that offering employment to a 290 registrant is just not worth the potential bad publicity (because the news almost always gets out) or the future risk to customers, kids, or others, why can’t they just say no?
Legislators, lawyers, and prisoner advocates say that sex offenders who have served their sentences or otherwise paid their so-called debts to society, should not continue to be judged, ostracized, re-victimized, or otherwise prevented from making a living. Perhaps. But because of the disturbing nature of their past crimes, or the fact that their living victims or their families get no peace, or because the temptation to strike again is so strong in so many of them, can’t we ask our state legislators to give our employers back the discretion they need to make a decision that benefits many, instead of the one?
Nothing will bring Chelsea King back to life. Her killer was in the registered sex offender database and proved that it does not always shield our society from harm. Whether he had a job or didn’t have a job was and is not the issue in her case. But for those who are housed in the Megan’s Law system, their criminal conviction history is just as important to a potential employer. If a good predictor of future behavior is past behavior, then can we ask our state legislators to bring back common sense to the hiring process?
Dr. Steve Albrecht, PHR, CPP is a San Diego-based speaker and writer on high-risk HR and security issues. He can be reached at drsteve@drstevealbrecht.com.
The rape and murder of 17 year-old Chelsea King in San Diego last week, allegedly at the hands of a convicted sex offender, reminds us all of the fragility of life. She was alive and vibrant one afternoon, and dead by nightfall, all because of a man who should still be in prison for his previous sexual assault and beating of a 13 year-old.
As of December 2004, anyone in California with access to a computer can go online to the Megan’s Law web site. This ability, of course, follows the legislative responses to the rape and murder of seven year-old New Jersey girl Megan Kanka, and a national series of horrific, tragic, and life-altering sexually-oriented crimes, where sexual predators assaulted and/or killed the children and adults who were unlucky enough to cross their paths.
All states have their own versions of our Megan’s Law databases, all created with the intention of helping people recognize or identify those men who have been convicted of certain sexually-related criminal offenses. (It’s no surprise women are hugely underrepresented as sexual predators, for various protective, behavioral, and biological reasons.)
California, being one of the leaders in deviance and deviant behavior, has not been registering sex offenders for very long; only since 1947. (Add your own thoughts here, if you are pleased or surprised that we have been keeping track of sex offenders for over 60 years, and yet these crimes continue.) And despite these efforts, as cases of kidnap, rape, and murder, in this state and around the country, continues, the various criminal justice, mental health, and correctional systems surrounding these offenders are shown as far from perfect.
Due to the obsessional nature of their disease (affliction, illness, or however the mental health and criminal justice professionals label it), the fear of sexual recidivism is constant. As many longitudinal studies suggest, the re-offend / re-arrest rate for these people, fresh from prison or a prison hospital, is 75 percent or higher. Those seem like great odds if you’re betting on the Super Bowl in Vegas, but lousy ones if you found your child with an offender who swears he has “seen the light,” found religion, or somehow realized the error of his previous malevolent ways.
The mere existence of a database filled with people who have already demonstrated extremely poor sexual, social, and behavioral boundaries points to a sad reality in society. These people and their crimes are not new; sex crimes have been around as long as sex. Taking adults and children by force and sexually abusing their bodies (not to mention scarring their psyches) has been around since we populated the caves. The fact that we have collected them electronically does not prevent their crimes from happening into the future.
So what is my major complaint about the Megan’s Law databases? As a security expert and an HR professional, I’d like to see our Golden State legislators remove a single, yet critical, word from the existing statute: “Section 290.46(j)(2) expressly prohibits the use of information disclosed on the website for purposes relating to health insurance, insurance, loans, credit, employment, education, housing, or benefits, privileges, or services, provided by any business establishment.” Delete the word “employment” from the statute and employers can get back the power to protect their own firms as they see fit.
If you can’t use the fact that a job applicant to your business is on a sex offender database, to make a safe hiring decision, then what is the purpose of knowing in the first place? You can’t unring that bell once it sounds. Let’s ask our legislators to have the guts to allow concerned HR professionals, hiring managers, and small business owners to use the knowledge of an applicant on the Megan’s Law database as criteria for not hiring that individual.
If we continue as it stands now, as one labor law attorney has put it, “We have made convicted sex offenders a ‘protected class.’”
According to California law, the statute says that authorized users can access the web site’s information “only to protect a person at risk,’ who is defined by Penal Code section 290.45(a)(8) as a person who`is or may be exposed to a risk of becoming a victim of a sex offense committed by the offender.’”
Should a business owner or manager have the right to say to an applicant, “Based on the fact that you are on a verified database for sexual offenders, we choose not to hire you”? Before the civil libertarians rise up in anger, we already know that we can ask the applicant about criminal convictions (not arrests) during the interview process. And according to the US Department of Labor, we can weigh the existence of a conviction using three criteria: the nature of the crime, how long ago it happened, and the nature of the applicant’s work with regard to the crime and his/her contact with employees, customers, taxpayers, patients, students, vendors, etc.
It’s perfectly reasonable to say that a man convicted once for drunk driving in 1980 should be allowed to drive a school bus if he has had no other traffic, substance abuse, or behavioral issues since that date. A similar conviction in 2008 should disqualify him for the job.
The problem with sex offenders is that there is a good reason they are now classified and categorized on-line as such; they recidivate, they re-offend, they re-harm, even after many years of “being clean and sober” from deviant sexual behavior (to mix the 12-step metaphor a bit).
Here’s a typical employment scenario to consider: a man works as a maintenance employee at an apartment complex that houses families. As a result of his previous sex crime conviction, he was put on probation and labeled (per California Penal Code) as a “290 registrant.” So while he may have completed his probation period (which barred him from contact with kids, loitering near a school, or whatever the restrictions spelled out), he still has to register as a sex offender, five days before or after his birthday, at the local police or sheriff’s station in the county where he lives, for life.
So while the Probation Department may be done with him, the State of California (and other states, if he moves), is not.
Let’s say there was no background check done on him to get his current position at the apartment complex; or he was never asked and didn’t tell. By all accounts, he is a good employee, with no performance or behavioral problems.
A resident in the complex gets curious about him and decides to look for him in the Megan’s Law database and discovers him there. Afraid for herself and her kids, she reports her findings to the management company of the apartment complex. What should they do? They cannot fire him for not revealing he is a 290 registrant. They cannot fire him for being a 290 registrant. They cannot fire him “for-cause” – a violation of policy or procedures, an attendance problem, an attitude problem, or a work performance problem. They cannot fire him.
To put it in streetside legal terms, the management company is screwed.
Company lawyers would advise them to monitor his work performance, watch his behavior around co-workers and residents, and keep a weather eye out for any signs of problems. That’s fine, right up until he sexually assaults a woman or child, and then it’s too late to be vigilant.
If we fire him, thinks the management company, he sues us for wrongful termination. If we keep him and he assaults someone in the apartment complex, the victim and/or the family sues us for hiring or continuing to employ him. Once again, to put it in streetside legal terms, the management company is screwed.
This issue of not using the Megan’s Law database as a judgmental criterion for employment prevents employers from making business decisions that affect their companies, their employees, and those they provide services to. If a hiring manager wants to hire a 290 registrant to work in his factory, he can. If a woman running a dry cleaning shop wants to hire a 290 registrant to work the front counter, she can. But if either of those people think that offering employment to a 290 registrant is just not worth the potential bad publicity (because the news almost always gets out) or the future risk to customers, kids, or others, why can’t they just say no?
Legislators, lawyers, and prisoner advocates say that sex offenders who have served their sentences or otherwise paid their so-called debts to society, should not continue to be judged, ostracized, re-victimized, or otherwise prevented from making a living. Perhaps. But because of the disturbing nature of their past crimes, or the fact that their living victims or their families get no peace, or because the temptation to strike again is so strong in so many of them, can’t we ask our state legislators to give our employers back the discretion they need to make a decision that benefits many, instead of the one?
Nothing will bring Chelsea King back to life. Her killer was in the registered sex offender database and proved that it does not always shield our society from harm. Whether he had a job or didn’t have a job was and is not the issue in her case. But for those who are housed in the Megan’s Law system, their criminal conviction history is just as important to a potential employer. If a good predictor of future behavior is past behavior, then can we ask our state legislators to bring back common sense to the hiring process?
Dr. Steve Albrecht, PHR, CPP is a San Diego-based speaker and writer on high-risk HR and security issues. He can be reached at drsteve@drstevealbrecht.com.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Coaching the Disruptive Supervisor: When the Problem Employee is the Boss
When it comes to a difficult frontline employee, we often use coaching sessions, progressive discipline, and the real possibility of termination to gain better compliance from the person. So if that’s true for a staff member, shouldn’t it also be true for a manager or supervisor with behavior or attitude problems? One simple but important message that every employee, at every level, needs to understand is that they could get disciplined or fired for having a lousy attitude and inflicting their hostilities upon other people.
The phrase to use in these coaching or pre-discipline conversations is “business impact,” as in, “When you scream at your subordinates, it hurts our business. It’s bad for the business of this department and it impacts this organization in a negative way. We want it to stop. You are paid for your results, but you are also paid to create a peaceable, fair, and comfortable work environment for the people who work with or for you. If you can’t make immediate changes in the way you treat people, we will move to discipline you, in accordance with our HR policy.”
In their defense, disruptive managers are a study in differences. On the one hand, they can be creative, energetic, and project-focused. They demand quality in themselves and others, and they are often quite good at making or saving the company lots of money.
On the other hand, they can be entitled, hostile, and angry, and all with a hair trigger. They can be tone deaf as to the impact of their behavior and not good as a mere group member if they are not fully in charge of the proceedings. As a result, they manage in a culture of fear, where employees complain bitterly (but privately) to each other, leave, or in the worst cases, threaten or file suit for claims of hostile workplaces.
If frontline employees don’t complain directly to their supervisors, then we may recognize the problem when disruptive managers irritate customers, clients, vendors, or even company board members or corporate counsel to a level where an intervention conversation becomes necessary.
Sometimes senior executives or the company owners can get caught up in the disruptive manager’s use of the Big Four: minimizing, denying, rationalizing, and blaming. Here, the manager on the hot seat says, “I’m not like this all the time! I only blow up when people push my buttons or things aren’t done to my satisfaction.” Or, “I don’t see what the big deal is. Since I’m their boss, my people need to learn to understand me better.”
One potential problem can arise when the disruptive manager enjoys sales success and positive customer or client feedback. This can lead to accusatory statements like, “How can you possibly criticize my supposedly `bad attitude’ when I’m tops in sales or the clients love me?”
The coaching conversation with this type of manager should be specific: “We know you contribute to our bottom line and we appreciate it. Your job here is not just about showing up on time, demonstrating technical skills, or meeting our sales goals. Having a positive, cooperative, and team-based attitude is a big part of your job as well.”
Coaching meetings about a disruptive manager’s attitude should not be about using labels to describe past problems; it should be about discussing very specific and immediate behavioral changes he or she needs to make.
When it comes to a difficult frontline employee, we often use coaching sessions, progressive discipline, and the real possibility of termination to gain better compliance from the person. So if that’s true for a staff member, shouldn’t it also be true for a manager or supervisor with behavior or attitude problems? One simple but important message that every employee, at every level, needs to understand is that they could get disciplined or fired for having a lousy attitude and inflicting their hostilities upon other people.
The phrase to use in these coaching or pre-discipline conversations is “business impact,” as in, “When you scream at your subordinates, it hurts our business. It’s bad for the business of this department and it impacts this organization in a negative way. We want it to stop. You are paid for your results, but you are also paid to create a peaceable, fair, and comfortable work environment for the people who work with or for you. If you can’t make immediate changes in the way you treat people, we will move to discipline you, in accordance with our HR policy.”
In their defense, disruptive managers are a study in differences. On the one hand, they can be creative, energetic, and project-focused. They demand quality in themselves and others, and they are often quite good at making or saving the company lots of money.
On the other hand, they can be entitled, hostile, and angry, and all with a hair trigger. They can be tone deaf as to the impact of their behavior and not good as a mere group member if they are not fully in charge of the proceedings. As a result, they manage in a culture of fear, where employees complain bitterly (but privately) to each other, leave, or in the worst cases, threaten or file suit for claims of hostile workplaces.
If frontline employees don’t complain directly to their supervisors, then we may recognize the problem when disruptive managers irritate customers, clients, vendors, or even company board members or corporate counsel to a level where an intervention conversation becomes necessary.
Sometimes senior executives or the company owners can get caught up in the disruptive manager’s use of the Big Four: minimizing, denying, rationalizing, and blaming. Here, the manager on the hot seat says, “I’m not like this all the time! I only blow up when people push my buttons or things aren’t done to my satisfaction.” Or, “I don’t see what the big deal is. Since I’m their boss, my people need to learn to understand me better.”
One potential problem can arise when the disruptive manager enjoys sales success and positive customer or client feedback. This can lead to accusatory statements like, “How can you possibly criticize my supposedly `bad attitude’ when I’m tops in sales or the clients love me?”
The coaching conversation with this type of manager should be specific: “We know you contribute to our bottom line and we appreciate it. Your job here is not just about showing up on time, demonstrating technical skills, or meeting our sales goals. Having a positive, cooperative, and team-based attitude is a big part of your job as well.”
Coaching meetings about a disruptive manager’s attitude should not be about using labels to describe past problems; it should be about discussing very specific and immediate behavioral changes he or she needs to make.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Three acts of violence; same warning signs beforehand
Within the month of February, we have seen a disgruntled college professor open fire at her campus in Alabama; a disgruntled engineer crash his small plane into an IRS building in Austin, Texas; and a man shoot two students at a middle school near Columbine High School in Colorado. What is the common theme in each of these tragedies? That they were disgruntled is a given. (note to self: Why didn't I copyright the phrase "disgruntled ex-employee" back in 1994, when I wrote my Ticking Bombs workplace violence book in 1994? I could've retired on the royalties.)
No, the fact they were disgruntled was and is proven by the results of their actions: four dead, several wounded. The larger issue is that their irrational behavior was known to others prior to their actions. Amy Bishop had killed her brother with an "accidental shotgun blast" back in the 1980s. She (and her husband) were "persons of interest" in an attempted by bombing of a colleague she hated at Harvard. Several witnesses said she had brought a gun to her Alabama campus and threatened people with it.
The man who crashed his plane into the Austin IRS office had long-standing beefs with the government over his tax issues. On the evening before his crash, he had fought with his wife an apparently lit his own house on fire.
According to his father, the man who shot two kids at the middle school in Colorado "heard voices" and acted strangely long before the attack.
If one of the best predictors of future behavior is past behavior, then why do so many people rationalize the irrational behavior of others? Why do we (usually through the media reports) learn so many disturbing things in the aftermath? Why do we seemed so surprised when people who frighten their families, their co-workers, and others, go on to harm others and themselves?
We don't need to create a tattletale culture; we need to create a culture of honesty, where people close to those who are mentally ill, severely disturbed, and pose a danger to themselves and others, are not afraid to ask doctors, police, or others for help. We seem to want to wait for the "Big Event" in our world, and when it happens, we act surprised.
Dr. Steve Albrecht, PHR, CPP is a San Diego-based speaker and writer on high-risk HR and security issues. He can be reached at drsteve@drstevealbrecht.com.
No, the fact they were disgruntled was and is proven by the results of their actions: four dead, several wounded. The larger issue is that their irrational behavior was known to others prior to their actions. Amy Bishop had killed her brother with an "accidental shotgun blast" back in the 1980s. She (and her husband) were "persons of interest" in an attempted by bombing of a colleague she hated at Harvard. Several witnesses said she had brought a gun to her Alabama campus and threatened people with it.
The man who crashed his plane into the Austin IRS office had long-standing beefs with the government over his tax issues. On the evening before his crash, he had fought with his wife an apparently lit his own house on fire.
According to his father, the man who shot two kids at the middle school in Colorado "heard voices" and acted strangely long before the attack.
If one of the best predictors of future behavior is past behavior, then why do so many people rationalize the irrational behavior of others? Why do we (usually through the media reports) learn so many disturbing things in the aftermath? Why do we seemed so surprised when people who frighten their families, their co-workers, and others, go on to harm others and themselves?
We don't need to create a tattletale culture; we need to create a culture of honesty, where people close to those who are mentally ill, severely disturbed, and pose a danger to themselves and others, are not afraid to ask doctors, police, or others for help. We seem to want to wait for the "Big Event" in our world, and when it happens, we act surprised.
Dr. Steve Albrecht, PHR, CPP is a San Diego-based speaker and writer on high-risk HR and security issues. He can be reached at drsteve@drstevealbrecht.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
