HR Management & Compliance

Are We ‘Coddling’ Our Workers?


A tough-talking, strictly business consultant says yes, and we need to stop it, and start focusing on business.


It’s the closing seconds of an NFL football game, and the losing team has the ball. If they can score now, they can win!


The team huddles, and the quarterback calls for a long pass. But then, instead of the traditional group clap, lineup and snap, a discussion ensues:


“A pass won’t work,” says the center. “We need to run it.” “My opinion,” pipes up a running back, “is a screen pass will work better.” “Just don’t throw to me,” warns the tight end, “I’m just not in the mood to catch a ball right now.”


That’s the way business operates today, said HR consultant Shane Yount, of Competitive Solutions, Inc. (CSI), Alpharetta, Ga. Yount, who spent years working for Perdue Farms, the chicken products producer, was addressing a seminar at the recent HR Florida conference in Orlando.


“There’s a belief today that everything is negotiable,” Yount declared. “This comes from too much concern over pleasing the employees’ ‘Happy-Meter.’ Leaders are trained to be responsive to and collaborate with their workers. Well, I don’t buy it!”


What’s more, he says, management has become a “dumpster,” taking on all manner of tasks employees can do for themselves. And he notes that high performance has more to do with the charisma of individual managers than the processes that operate the business. If those managers leave, results often go out the door with them. “We’re leaving no legacy of management,” Yount says.


What are the solutions?


First, he says, delineate certain “nonnegotiable business drivers,” a set of “minimum business processes that all leaders and teams have to follow, and that are both visible and capable of being audited.” These could include key metrics to be reached and protocols to be followed in a disciplined, observable manner.


Then, create a “culture of accountability” by communicating those goals in a way that makes the employee acknowledge both receipt and understanding of the information. “Right now, we use bulletin boards, check stuffers, e-mail,” he says. “That’s advertising, which is one-way communication. And it’s the top reason people escape accountability … by pleading ignorance of the message.”


Yount instead recommends regularly held process- and business-focused meetings, built around an “action register”—a document of what needs to be done, by when, and by whom, and a visible “scorecard” showing progress. “A visible scorecard sets the tone of the meeting before a word is spoken,” says Yount. “It’s like the scoreboard at half-time at a football game. One look and you know what the tone of the coach’s locker room talk will be.”


He told listeners how this process is used at the North American arm of the giant tire maker, Michelin, a CSI client. “They show items on the scorecard in red and green,” he noted, “then they go around the table assessing performance to goal.” Little time is given to green items, those progressing well, though successful managers are recognized for their deeds. The meeting is instead, focused on the red items, which each get a corrective action plan. And if expectations aren’t being met, there’s no renegotiation of goals allowed at the meeting.


“We have to stop managing by personality,” says Yount, “and start managing by process.”


Some might call Yount’s attitudes “hard-nosed.” Others might say it’s about time employers “got down to business” in how we deal with workers. What do you think? Use the Share Your Comments button and let us know.

Print

3 thoughts on “Are We ‘Coddling’ Our Workers?”

  1. As much as it would seem to be “easier” to tell employees how it’s going to be, there’s simply too much push-back when we don’t get their buy-in. Although I don’t support “coddling”, I know from experience that happy employees are more productive and they are more-willing to take the extra step when asked than those who are not happy.

  2. On the one hand I agree with Shane, while on the other I do not, at least not totally. I believe that both models work in the right (appropriate) situation. Let me elaborate. We are all aware of the mountains of studies and published “reports” that demonstrate that organizations with “engaged” workforces perform better than their “disengaged” counterparts. Logically, since this is the way I like to be managed, I would agree that this makes sense. Then, there are the other examples of market leading companies that have a reputation (significant and widely acknowledged) of having a highly authoritarian managment leader. I do not think that anyone would consider the employees of these firms to be “engaged” by definition yet those companies are industry leaders.

    Further, I believe that employees move from job to job (company to company) until they find a place where they are managed the way they want to be managed. This would suggest to me that the accountability model is right in some places while a more participative style is right in others.

    What do you think?

  3. I would agree with this article. Some of the most successful managers I have known are the type that hold their people accountable, walk the talk and lead with somewhat of an iron fist. Employees (good employees) like structure, like knowing someone is in charge and will follow that type of leader. They might not LIKE them, but they will respect them since they have drawn a line in the sand on performance and other key areas. George Patton comes to mind – he led his troops and there was NO question who was in charge.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *