When you go home at the end of the day, would you say it's been a successful day ONLY because you did your job, but nothing more? ("It was a really successful day today, I made all the burgers that were ordered.") Or is it more likely that you'd consider it a successful day because you accomplished something challenging, or important, or before it was due? ("It was a successful day today, we had a massive rush at lunchtime and I was able to make twice the number of burgers we normally make for lunch, and got everyone their food quickly.") Wouldn't it be more likely that the first example is simply an average day?
Note: Some people might define success as simply getting through the day, let alone accomplishing anything. It is hard to include such folks into this analysis simply because they may not be considered typical. I would refer to these folks as a slight outlier that may require different treatment based on their unique needs.
There's nothing wrong with doing your job, as directed and on time. But that's all it is - doing your job. If you simply do your job, you're an average employee. Average doesn't equal bad. A lot of people would have no problem with that - and that's awesome. If, to you, the only thing you want to do at your current job is to do it and nothing else, then that is all you need to do. Some people prefer it this way because their job isn't their main priority in life. Or their life goals require funds that their job provides. Or because it's simply what they prefer. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this approach, if it's the approach you want to take.
That's the key. This is ONLY okay if you (as an employee) want it to be. As an employer, however, you should NOT assume this is what your employee wants, unless they've clearly articulated it to you. As an employer, you should also NOT assume this because it is in your best interest not to. If you have an employee who is capable of doing more than the current tasks for their current job, do you want to keep them where they are, or give them a job where they can accomplish more (for YOU)? Is it not to your benefit to put good motivated people in challenging roles?
I believe employee success means that the employee is able to achieve THEIR work and career goals. And sometimes this success might even take place at an organization other than yours. But that's okay. If an employee has a goal to work their way towards Job A, it should partially be the responsibly of their organization to help them get to Job A. (Or help them identify that Job A may not be for them, and determine what is right for them. For example, someone who wants to be a fisherman but hates the water and gets sea sick!)
I say partially because if the employee does not want to do this, then it takes the employer somewhat off the hook. However, as an employer you should ask yourself WHY the employee doesn't have specific career goals and if you should be concerned about that lack of goals while they're working for your organization. Some possible examples of individuals who do not appear to want success are ...
Example 1: Student* - if the role is filled by someone (of any age) who is currently enrolled in part or full time school, and that schooling is unrelated to their job and/or industry, they might simply be doing the job until they finish school. In this case, they may choose that they're okay in the position they're in, happy with the work and income, and have no need for career development within the organization.
However, just because they're a student doesn't mean they're uninterested in "success." They may be a student enrolled in a program related to the organization they work for, and are in fact taking that schooling in order to advance at the organization. In this case, they've already shown initiative in their own success and the organization should help them by also showing initiative.
Note that there is a chance you do not know someone is a student, and they may choose not to tell you, even if you ask. This may be especially true if their education is unrelated to their current job and/or industry. Technically, if they do not wish to share this information with you, then it's none of your business and you have to assess them based on what you do know.
*Goodness I could write a whole article on this topic alone, and I probably will.
Example 2: Lazy - there are people who simply are lazy, and they have no interested in doing more than absolutely necessary. This may not be a bad thing, if they at least do it well and on time and you have no problems with them. But if they're consistently under-performing, this may be an issue.
The solution in this case may actually be quite simple - talk to them. Don't ask them outright if they're lazy! But ask them what their career goals are, what they'd like to see themselves doing in 5 to 10 years, that sort of thing. If you find they have no motivation for advancement and are content with what they're doing, then that's fine. If that lack of motivation extends to their work, and they're under-performing, you may need to discuss some options with them.
Example 3 - Angry - I have yet to meet someone who has a job that at one time or another hasn't made them angry! Sometimes that anger is short-lived, sometimes is never goes away. And by angry I'm referring to someone who may not be happy with their current situation (at home or at work), who may feel they've been overlooked one too many times, who doesn't feel appreciated or valued by their manager, etc.
For the folks in the 'angry' category, there are several issues. One, if it's a personal issue that's causing them to behave this way, you might not be able to help them other than to make sure they understand you'll support them and will listen to anything they have to say. I've known folks whose home situation was so stressful that they preferred to have a job that was consistent and straight-forward so they'd have one less thing to worry over. Once their home situation was resolved, then they'd focus on other things.
Two, if it's not a personal issue, then there's an excellent chance that this person has been treated badly by the organization in the past and is holding a grudge. Sometimes the grudge isn't called for, sometimes it is. An employee who is angry at the organization may have no motivation whatsoever to advance or do anything other than the bare minimum. In their minds they may feel this is all the organization deserves of them, that if the organization chooses not to help them, then they're not going to help the organization. I will address these types of folks below**.
Example 4: Unsure/Nervous - not everyone knows what they want, or where they want to go. Some of them are scared or nervous about change. This may not mean they don't want change, especially if it's related to their own success, but it may mean they won't take the initiative, and they probably need additional guidance through the process.
Example 5: Content - I mentioned before that sometimes people are perfect content in the job they're doing and how they're doing it, and have no need to do anything further. As with examples 1 and 2, if they're doing a good job and don't want anything more, that's fine.
Can employee success be achieved the same way in a non-union and a union environment?
NO, it is NOT the same. Union-based organizations have limitations and/or restrictions on what they're able to do for and with their employees. However, this doesn't mean they should ignore it, they simply have to do it differently.
**How do you help a disenfranchised employee obtain success?
Very carefully!! My definition of a disenfranchised employee is someone who has been treated badly, disrespected, overlooked, under-utilized, or over-worked by the organization. These treatment may have come from their co-workers, manager/supervisor, non-direct management, human resources, or executives. Without any actual research to back this up, I would assume that in most cases employees have experienced this treatment from people closer to them, like a co-worker or supervisor, than someone further removed from them.
In my opinion, before you can help an employee of this type achieve success, you need to remedy the reason(s) why they feel disenfranchised. My reasoning is that if you simply ignore past events and treatment and move forward, you may actually make the situation worse as the employee will think they've been ignored ... again. In order to remedy the disenfranchisement, you need to speak to the employee(s) in question and find out specifically how they feel, and where they feel they've been wronged.
I may write a whole article on "How to tell if your team or department is unhappy." I think sometimes management assumes, because no one's approached them, or they haven't personally noticed anything, that nothing is wrong. Here's the thing, the problem could be YOU. You could intimidate your employees so much that they are too afraid to tell you anything, and hide this dissatisfaction when you're around. Or, they may feel this dissatisfaction towards some managers, but not all, but they've grouped all managers together under the assumption that all of them are "bad." The "us against them" attitude. "If you're not one of them, your against them" point of view!
Once the reason for disenfranchisement has been cleared up, helping them achieve success should be the same as anyone else.
Employer: Why should I care?
Good question. I suppose you only need to care if (a) you want to be a successful organization either financially or socially, (b) you want to maintain or obtain a good/great/awesome reputation, (c) you care about your employee's well-being, and (d) you're simply a decent human being. If, as an organization, you do not care about any of the above noted items, then don't worry about employee success as you have many other issues you need to worry about!
If, however, you do care about or agree with the above noted items, then you should also care about employee success. You're employees are probably your most important (and possibly most expensive) asset. Hiring and training new employees is a time consuming and expensive situation. Loyal (and happy) employees are more likely to care about organizational success and reputation - and are more likely to give the organization more of their time and effort.
Treating employees badly, or simply not caring about them, equals financial loss. They're more likely to work inefficiently and unproductively (decreased productivity = increased expenses). They're more likely to say bad things about the organization to their friends and family - which now happens on social media (this article being a case in point) primarily (bad reputation = reduced customer interest or lower sales & potential PR issues). They're more likely to share their dislike with co-workers who, if they don't already feel that way, may become upset based on this organizational behaviour (even more decreased productivity = increased expenses). You're going to have higher turnover (higher turnover = increased expenses).
There are some organizations who do not 'care' about profit. But even organizations who don't care about profit, care about expenses. And any situation where there's a decrease in profit is either due to decreased revenue or increased expenses. If the organization doesn't have revenue, then the ONLY cause is increased expenses. This same organizations may not have 'sales' either, but they still have 'customers' of some type. Maybe those 'customers' are clients, patients, students, users, etc. And that organization most likely depends on the existence of those 'customers' in order to be successful, even if that success isn't measured in dollars. However, in such a capitalistic society, I refuse to believe that ANY organization doesn't measure itself in some way from a financial perspective.
NEXT: How is employee success achieved?
No comments:
Post a Comment