Archives for October 2013

The Six Levels of Workplace Health

The theory of “workplace health” can be best described by comparing a workplace to a human being. As humans, our health is often affected by the choices we make regarding diet, exercise, stress and generally the way we choose to live our lives. Poor diet, excessive stress, lack of sleep, lack of exercise and destructive behaviours such as alcohol and drug abuse can often lead to poor health.

The same can be said of a workplace’s health. Often workplaces exhibit behaviours which are indicative of poor conflict management, leading to unfair decisions, a high turnover rate, and unproductive workplaces.

In this article, we consider the concept of “workplace health” and the consequences of poor workplace health upon the success of the organization.

Figure 1 is a model called the “WFI Workplace Health Theory: Six Levels of Workplace Health”. It describes both constructive and destructive workplace behaviours as well as reactive and proactive responses to conflict. By comparing these two elements we have identified six levels of workplace conflict health.

Figure 1 – WFI Workplace Health Theory: Six Levels of Workplace Health

 Six Levels of Workplace Health

While most workplaces may show signs of each of these workplace health levels, more productive, engaging and positive workplace environments focus upon the top three levels of workplace health. These levels are purposefully prioritized to symbolize their desirability. In other words, the most healthy workplaces are those that concentrate on “holistic constructive” approaches while the least healthy workplaces exhibit “active destructive” behaviours. The goal of any workplace should be to move toward holistic, constructive approaches and away from active destructive behaviours.

Conflict Behaviours

Organizations, like human beings, are complex organisms. Humans may get up in the morning, have a balanced nutritious breakfast, go for a jog, then smoke cigarettes and drink coffee all day, and consume alcohol for much of the evening. In other words, humans have destructive and constructive behaviours. Some humans have more or less of each, but it is fair to say that most humans practice both types of behaviours.

The same can be said about organizations and “conflict behaviours”. An organization may invest considerable resources and effort into a peer mediation program, and then allow abusive behaviours from their management team because it produces short term results.

Typical Destructive Behaviours

Many workplaces engage in some types of destructive behaviours. Some of the most observable destructive behaviours are:

  • Bullying
  • Harassment
  • Discrimination
  • Favouritism
  • Lawlessness
  • Unfair decisions
  • Excessive bottom line focus
  • Excessive “victory” focus
  • Lack of concern for individuals
  • Harsh and unfair punishments

While there are some workplaces that exhibit these behaviours directly and in abundance, many other workplaces have more subtle and nuanced versions of these destructive behaviours. For example, the employee who might be a little different or is not someone’s best friend is not selected for the promotion. The employee is not considered a “team player”.

A good example of institutionalized destructive behaviour was Enron’s performance management policy. They had what is commonly referred to as the “rank and yank” method of succession planning. They would annually rank their employees from 1 to 100. Then they would draw a line at a certain percentile and fire employees who did not meet reach that percentile.

This encouraged all the destructive behaviours mentioned above. In a rush to the top, workplace participants would do anything necessary to make themselves look good and make others look bad. The excessive bottom line focus drove employees to lie to survive and this created a culture of extreme unfairness. Needless to say, this was one of the reasons for the massive implosion of the company. It is a good example of a Level 1 — Active Destructive corporate health culture.

Many organizations wallow in the destructive side of workplace health. They always suffer — sometimes in very severe ways. As estimated in the Corporate Leavers Survey conducted for the Level Playing Field Institute in 2007, two million professionals leave their jobs every year in the United States solely because of a perception that the organization will not treat them fairly.

And this just one of five responses to a culture of unfairness in the workplace; most of which are negative and damaging to the workplace culture and those within it. These responses include (see Figure 2 below):

  • External Exit (i.e. leave the organization)
  • Internal Exit (i.e. absenteeism, presenteeism)
  • Assimilate (i.e. become abusive)
  • Challenge (i.e. try to combat the unfairness)
  • Head Down (i.e. come into work and keep your head down — don’t work any harder than you have to, to keep your job)

There is only one of those responses that can produce positive results for the organization — the “challenge” response. This response is usually made by employees with a high level of loyalty to the organization and a strong self-confidence in their employment options. This employee seeks to move the culture away from destructive behaviours and towards constructive behaviours. Three of the other four responses — “external exit”, “internal exit” and “head down” — allow an organization to entrench its destructive behaviour through lack of direct challenge. The fifth response, “assimilation”, actively supports and encourages destructive behaviours. These people “assimilate” into the culture of unfairness and become active participants, thinking that this is the way to get along and get ahead in this organization.

Figure 2: The Head-Down Theory: Zones of Engagement

 Zones of Engagement

Active, Passive and Reactive Destructive Behaviours

As noted in the Six Levels of Workplace Health model (Figure 1), we have identified three types of destructive behaviours. Active Destructive behaviours are the most obvious and damaging to workplace health. These include bullying, discrimination, violence and harassment. They can also include institutionalized unfairness like the “rank and yank” model of performance management and succession planning. We would call this “Level One Behaviour” as it is considered the most damaging to the organization’s health.

There are also Passive Destructive behaviours, like lawlessness, and what we call the “bottom-line fetish” (i.e. sacrificing the conflict health of the organization in the interests of immediate economic performance), and generally a lack of concern for individuals in the workplace. These passive behaviours promote active destructive behaviours. In a lawless organization, for example, active destructive behaviours tend to take hold as people fight for their own survival and advancement without regard to fair rules and fair decision-making. We call this “Level Two Behaviour” because it indirectly promotes Level One behaviours.

The third level of workplace health is called Reactive Destructive. These behaviours are more commonly associated with excessive command and control, or top-down cultures. They are typified by harsh and unfair punishments, excessive concern for legal liability and an undue focus on employee obedience rather than employee contribution. While organizations that are typified by such behaviour may discourage bullying and discrimination, and they certainly will have rules, they tend to be too heavy-handed and patriarchal — thus leaving employees with a sense of fear throughout their working lives. We refer to these as “Level Three Behaviours”.

Constructive Behaviours and Responses

The top three levels of Workplace Health consider constructive behaviours and constructive responses to conflict. In ascending order we call these three levels “Reactive Constructive”, “Preventative Constructive” and “Holistic Constructive”, the highest level.

The Fourth Level of Workplace Health is dominated by Reactive Constructive behaviours and responses to conflict. Examples of Reactive Constructive approaches might be: fair and balanced dispute resolution decision-making, mediation, fair investigation processes. These approaches focus upon dealing with conflict as it arises. While we consider these approaches constructive, they are also mostly reactive in nature. They do not arise until the conflict has already happened. Additionally, they are mostly focused on dealing with the conflict at hand. These approaches can be helpful in dealing with the symptoms of an unhealthy organization — but they are not always useful at addressing the underlying causes.

To better understand the limitations of Reactive Constructive approaches to dealing with workplace issues, it is helpful to consider the Conflict Transformations theory advanced by Rubin, Pruitt and Kim in their book Social Conflict. In charting the course of conflict in large scale international disputes, the authors concluded that conflict takes on five transformations:

  • The first transformation involves the efforts that people use to get their way in a conflict. They start out as light tactics to influence the other side and steadily progress to heavier often threatening tactics.
  • The second transformation concerns the issues involved in the conflict. The issue might start out as small and singular in nature, but they proliferate as the conflict continues.
  • The third transformation involves the attribution theory. The parties start with a focus upon the issues themselves, but the conflict then transforms to conflict about the personalities and dispositions of the other side.
  • The fourth transformation involves the goals of the parties in conflict. The parties might begin with a goal of doing well in the conflict or getting the matter dealt with quickly and efficiently. As the conflict continues unabated, the goals of the parties start to transform at first from doing well to winning and finally to hurting the other side.
  • The fifth transformation relates to who the conflict affects. At the start, the conflict might only be between two parties, but as it continues other parties must get involved. At its extreme (like the Arab-Israeli conflict) the world is drawn in on this conflict.

Whether the conflict is on the international stage or in the workplace, the transformations take on the same character. What seems an insignificant matter between two parties is morphed into an uncontrollable conflict that affects many people and can have dire consequences for all involved. It is for this reason that Reactive Constructive measures are considered to result in a lower level of workplace health than more proactive measures. By the time the reactive measure is invoked, there has already been considerable conflict transformation and the health of the workplace has already suffered — sometimes irreparably. This is why progressive workplaces are considering more proactive measures.

The Fifth Level of Workplace Health — Preventative Constructive — is indicative of generally proactive measures for dealing with workplace conflict. Workplaces which are predominately at this level of workplace health tend to concern themselves with forward thinking as it relates to conflict and unfairness. In such workplaces, strategies will be developed to forecast and account for potential sources, and they will devise strategies to minimize the likelihood of conflict taking place. Preventative Constructive measures can include training and development of staff, managers, and human resources professionals, on how best to deal with conflict and make fair and consistent decisions. There will also be thoughtful, balanced and well researched policies in place that guide workplace participants through conflict situations, and policies that inform workplace participants how to avoid unnecessary conflict. Conflict coaching, when used thoughtfully, can be a Preventative Constructive measure. Where workplace individuals are identified as “in need of coaching”, and where the conflict coach is called well in advance of major conflict to help those in need, this has a preventative quality for future conflict.

The advantage of a Preventative Constructive approach is that much conflict and unfairness is forecasted and managed up front before it occurs. Workplaces that devote resources to training, good policy making, and thoughtful processes tend to moderate the transformations of conflict we discussed earlier. These workplaces are more fair, healthy and conflict-free than those that rely upon reactive approaches.

The sixth and highest level of workplace health is called Holistic Constructive. Like the previous level, the Holistic Constructive level focuses on proactive approaches for managing workplace health. What distinguishes the Holistic Constructive level from the Preventative Constructive level, is that Holistic Constructive workplaces seek to integrate conflict management and fairness into the very business of the workplace. Such workplaces are keen on organizational analysis, considering the impact of all processes, policies, procedures and decisions upon the health of the workplace.

The consistent view of Holistic Constructive workplaces is that healthy workplaces are wealthy workplaces. A clear line is drawn between health and success for such organizations. Typically, such organizations rely upon constant feedback from participants and are committed to continuous improvement in the way they deal with human issues. The goal is to engage workplace participants to play a positive role in engendering workplace health as well as wealth. Thus, while generally the responsibility falls upon “management” to ensure workplace health at the lower levels, at the Holistic Constructive Level this responsibility is openly and eagerly shared with each workplace participant through feedback forums, training and development, appreciative enquiry and thoughtful planning.

Summary

This model should be used as a diagnostic tool to help assess the overall level of workplace conflict health. Organizations that encourage constructive behaviours and discourage destructive behaviours are generally more productive an innovative. Employees are generally more engaged in their work and tend to be more interested in the success of the organization. This tool should be used to help identify negative and positive behaviours and to encourage proactive approaches to managing the workplace.

About the Author

Blaine DonaisBlaine Donais (B.A., LL.B., LL.M., RPDR, C. Med.) is President and Founder of the Workplace Fairness Institute. Blaine is a labour lawyer and an expert in labour/management facilitations, mediation, and investigation. He teaches human resources professionals, labour leaders and others in areas such as human rights, labour and employment law, human resources, collective bargaining and conflict resolution.

Blaine is author of Workplaces That Work: A Guide to Conflict Management in Union and Non-Union Work Environments (Carswell, 2006), and of Engaging Unionized Employees (Carswell, 2010) and Workplace Mediation (Carswell, upcoming 2014). Blaine is an Adjunct Professor of Workplace Conflict Management, and Advanced Mediation Academic Director at York University. He also teaches at the Centre for Industrial Relations and Human Resources at the University of Toronto and at Royal Roads University.

 

The Golden Rules of Fact-Finding: Six Steps to Developing a Fact-Finding Plan

As labour relations professionals, we are required to engage in fact-finding on a regular basis. Good fact-finding ensures that the information upon which we form our conclusions and recommendations is credible, and that our advice is evidence-based.

When planned and executed properly, fact-finding provides a solid foundation for conducting analyses, forming conclusions, generating options and formulating sound recommendations. Fact-finding may involve researching documents or existing records and data, holding focus groups, interviewing witnesses, or using written surveys and questionnaires. The techniques employed will depend on the project or issue under consideration. What is constant across all fact-finding missions is the need for a plan to guide and document your efforts.

Developing a good fact-finding plan starts with figuring out what you need to know – what information do you have to have in order to form an evidence-based opinion. The precursors to good fact-finding include scoping the issue to determine what it is you need to answer, understanding the context within which the issue has arisen, and appreciating the “political” landscape (organizational and personal relationships often play a significant role in shaping a witness’ view of a matter) – all of these things can influence the approach you take to any given fact-finding endeavour.

I like to follow what I call my Golden Rules of Fact-Finding:

  1. Go to the source. The source may be a person or a record, and while not always readily accessible, you should strive to obtain the best evidence available. Search existing policies and procedures and begin to understand how they affect the issue. Identify unwritten rules or practices that form the context of the issue. Establish a recording protocol to document everything that you have gathered and always obtain original copies of documents and records.
  2. Stay objective. Do not become unduly swayed by the people involved — focus on facts, not on opinions or personalities.
  3. Be persistent.  If you are not getting the information that you need, do not get derailed. Determine the root cause of why you are not getting the information. For example, have your sources signed a confidentiality agreement which precludes them from answering discussing the matter? When speaking with sources, if you are not getting the information you need, or they are deflecting your questions, probe them and get to the facts.
  4. Do not get paralyzed. The art of fact-finding is separating the information that is required from that which is not. Go where the facts take you, however, stay within the mandate of what it is you are investigating. Compartmentalize the facts as you gather them and delve deeper only where necessary. This will help you stay on track and avoid becoming overwhelmed.
  5. Do not assume. Confirm, confirm, confirm. All of the facts and information that you have gathered must be accurate. This will help you build credibility and support evidence–based decision-making.
  6. Have a plan and follow it. Think strategically and develop a plan. When you determine what you need to establish and whom you need to talk to before you start, the task of uncovering the facts will progress more smoothly.  As you begin to obtain facts, you may branch into new areas of enquiry, be required to clarify previous statements, connect with new sources and review additional documents. Just remember that your plan is a living document and you will need to revisit and review it regularly.

In order to succeed as a trusted, strategic advisor to business executives, today’s labour relations professional requires the ability to separate fact from fiction, and formulate options and recommendations based on evidence. Developing fact-finding skills is critical to ensure success.

 

About the Author

As a career civil servant, Lori Aselstine has over 33 years of experience in the fields of program management, human resources and labour relations. Lori has worked in all regions of Ontario, in small, medium and large operational ministries, as well as in central agency ministries. Lori has extensive experience conducting complex investigations, developing corporate grievance management/resolution strategies and processes, developing negotiation and bargaining mandates, and managing in a complex union-management environment. As a seasoned LR professional who has conducted hundreds of enquiries, investigations, mediations, arbitrations and negotiations, Lori has established a reputation as a skilled relationship-builder and problem-solver.

The Relevant HR Professional: Five Strategies to Better Engage with Senior Business Leaders

 Five Strategies to Better Engage with Senior Business LeadersI’m always stunned when I hear a senior business leader say that their head of HR isn’t one of their key advisors; that the head of HR is often not at the senior executive table when major strategic or market initiatives are being discussed.

And yet, in most organizations, human resources are both the largest expense line in the profit and loss statement and the most mission-critical resource: it is only with good people that ANYTHING of business value gets done. For this reason alone, there should be a senior HR professional at the table for every strategic discussion.

So how can it be that in so many companies, the senior HR professionals get relegated to the kids’ table when the main meal is being prepared and served? Why are HR issues too frequently an afterthought? The reason for this comes from both sides; business line executives often feel HR professionals spend too much time on process and analysis and not enough on understanding and creating strategic impact; and HR professionals historically have not been trained or encouraged to find the necessary business skills to identify that impact and talk about it in language that excites and engages business leaders.

We have to earn our way to the table. Yes, it is critical for our own careers, but more importantly it is imperative for the business.  Outlined here are five strategies that any HR professional can employ to make themselves so relevant to the business and so engaged in its success that senior executives will demand that they are invited to join the senior executive team.

1. Understand your customer’s customer

To connect our value to what is most important to our customers – the senior executive team in our organization – we need to deeply understand our customer’s customer. What is happening in their market? What pressures are they under to differentiate themselves from the competition in their customer’s eyes?  What kind of skills will they need to achieve that differentiation? Dave Ulrich, in his excellent book HR From the Outside In: Six Competencies for the Future of Human Resources, talks about the need for HR professionals to reverse the way they view the world, to go outside and understand the motivations of customers, regulators, industry groups and competitors. (As a note, Ulrich’s book HR From the Outside In: Six Competencies for the Future of Human Resources forms the heart of the Queen’s IRC Advanced HR program.)

By going outside the business and looking back in from the customer’s point-of-view, we can directly connect to the challenges our business line executives are facing in forming and executing a winning strategy. With this knowledge we can then shape and focus the value we deliver to help our customers differentiate their offerings and capture and retain their customers. By doing this we earn the right to engage in the strategic discussions that take place at the senior table.

2. Learn how to “sell” your value

The challenge for any executive in today’s business environment – this applies to CIO’s, marketing directors, compliance and risk officers, product heads and CFO’s in addition to HR professionals – is that there are more good projects to consider for investment than there are budget dollars to fund them. To be relevant, we need to be able to show how any initiative we propose will directly improve the business. We need to “sell” our ideas, and to sell them we must connect them directly to one or more of three key business drivers.

  1. How can this investment help to grow revenue?
  2. How can this investment reduce or help to better manage our costs?
  3. How can this investment help to better manage our risks?

Revenue. Cost. Risk. To be relevant, to be invited to the senior table, we need to ensure that any idea we propose connects directly to one or more of these areas. To do this, we need to understand how money is generated, how it is spent and what risks are involved in creating a profitable, competitive company.

3. Answer First

In discussing or presenting an initiative, start by showing the answer. Get to the point – immediately! And then backfill information as it is needed or requested. There is a story that when Jamie Dimon, current CEO of JPMorgan Chase, went to Bank One to be their new CEO, the weekly management meetings went on for hours and hours (8 hours was the number I heard when the story was relayed to me). Mr. Dimon is a driver, confident in his own knowledge and comfortable making decisions; these meetings drove him crazy.

So he implemented a rule that was called “Answer First”. Any executive making a presentation had to summarize his or her presentation on one cover page, including the relevant numbers. If the one page story was enough, the executive team made their decision and moved on. If they needed more information, the presenting executive was asked to present more. The meetings went from 8 hours to 2 hours. The point is that senior executives can process information very quickly – they “get” it – without needing extensive details. Remember, they aren’t buying a 40 page PowerPoint deck or 100 pages of detailed research – they are buying a compelling business argument backed by realistic financials. Make the concise argument. Back up your argument with relevant research and realistic financial numbers. Do the research and analysis and have your backup material ready, but don’t turn the telling of the story into a painful, mind numbing experience.

4. How do we get from here to money?

In most HR change initiatives, we are asking senior executives to invest in a change that will bring strategic benefit to their business. To earn this investment, we must be able to show the key decision makers how the organization or department will get from here to the point in time when their investment reaps the predicted returns. How do we get from here to money? This is an act of imagination – and it is an act we can’t assume our executives will make or will make well enough to see the full benefits and green light our project. We have to show them – succinctly – how the change will take place, when the investment will be required, when they can expect a return on that investment and how the risks of implementation will be managed.

5. Change the Conversation

To look at HR value through a business lens requires a mindset shift. To achieve this shift we need to change the way we think and talk about our work – we need to change the conversation. And the first conversation we need to change is the one in our heads. We need to think about what we do in terms of ultimate value to the business and – wherever realistically possible – translate that value into hard dollar financial terms.  This conversation must be the start of our approach to any problem or project: What is the business problem? What financial measure or risk mitigation practice am I working to improve? How can I plan and implement this change that gets us from here to money with the greatest speed and the least risk?

Secondly, we need to change the conversation with our teams. When we are discussing, researching, defining and preparing our arguments we need to challenge each other to define the business impact and to express it – Answer First! –  in succinct business terms and financial numbers.

And finally, we need to change the conversation with our senior executives. Even if we don’t have strong numbers, we need to be willing to talk about the numbers, about business impact, about their stakeholders, about how their strategy can be strengthened and the implementation times shortened. We need to change the conversation – in our head, with our team, and with our customers.

Companies and organizations of all sizes and shapes need senior HR professionals at the senior executive table. With the coming shifts in demographics and the endlessly accelerating need for better technical and business acumen and skills, there is a chair waiting at that table to be filled. Take the challenge – make yourself relevant and engaging; execute these strategies to show the full impact that you and HR can have on your business.

About the Author

Jim Harrison, Queen's IRC FacilitatorJim Harrison is an international consultant focused on strategy, sales and talent management for mid-sized to large organizations.  He started his career in financial services, working as a money trader for RBC/Dominion Securities.  He has over 27 years’ experience in consulting, training, and executive coaching. Jim is a facilitator on the Queen’s IRC Linking HR Strategy to Business Strategy program.  He also works with clients in North & South America, Europe, Australia, and Asia, and regularly facilitates strategy and training sessions for such well-known companies as IBM, Accenture, PwC, KPMG, Fuji, AGFA, the Toronto Dominion Bank, Deutsche Bank, and HSBC. He received his B.Sc. degree in Finance from Florida State University and a Master’s Degree in English from the University of California, Irvine.

 

References

Ulrich, D., Younger, J., Brockbank, W. & Ulrich, M. (2012). HR from the Outside In: Six Competencies for the Future of Human Resources. New York: McGraw-Hill

Random Drug and Alcohol Testing in the Workplace

 Balancing Employee Privacy Interests with Workplace SafetyIn modern society, safety and privacy interests frequently seem to conflict, particularly in the workplace. Random drug and alcohol testing is one instance when these interests may conflict. Employers are obligated under occupational safety legislation to provide a safe workplace for employees. The risk of workplace accidents increases if employees are working under the influence of drugs or alcohol. To mitigate that risk, some employers have implemented policies of random drug or alcohol testing. Employees and unions often object to such policies on the basis that random drug or alcohol testing infringes employee privacy interests.

Several months ago, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that employee privacy interests outweighed employer safety concerns in Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union, Local 30 v Irving Pulp & Paper, Ltd., 2013 SCC 34 (“Irving”). Irving marks the first time the Supreme Court of Canada has considered workplace drug or alcohol testing. Further, Irving is a departure from some of the earlier appellate court decisions on drug and alcohol testing, which focused on the legality of such policies under human rights legislation, as opposed to privacy considerations.

Understanding Generational Differences in the Workplace: Findings and Conclusions

Understanding Generational Differences in the WorkplaceThe study of generational differences has garnered increasing interest among organizations, practitioners and researchers in recent years. There are many reasons for this keen interest, including the need to manage people from several different generations, to better adapt the workplace to a multigenerational workforce, to attract and retain new talent, and to identify the working conditions that will lead to positive attitudes and behaviours among younger workers.

Since workers from different generations have always worked together, why does this situation currently appear to be raising challenges for human resource management? Three reasons are put forward. First, the different generations are said to have different values and expectations regarding work which are not easily compatible. Second, people from different generations are working together for longer periods now than they did in the past. Workers are less likely to follow the clear cut studies-work-retirement path that was formerly standard. People leave their jobs, upgrade their skills, look for new jobs, change careers, retire and then, increasingly, re-enter the labour market. Third and lastly, the difficulties stemming from this situation are brought about by discrepancies in the management practices of companies themselves. Stable, high-quality jobs are becoming scarce. Employees are no longer accumulating the funds needed to ensure financial security during retirement and find themselves having to work longer. Those who have invested in enhancing their skills and who have had unstable careers are staying in the workforce longer or taking advantage of bridge employment opportunities which delay their exit from the labour market.

In this research report, we will show that generational differences are a myth and have very little empirical support. Following a contextual overview, we will discuss the theoretical and analytical frameworks that have been used to explain the differences between the generations. We will end with some conclusions.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.