These Qs and As summarise the main non-proprietary themes that have emerged from RLT Associates' client and contact discussions in the recent past. Some details have been changed to protect residual confidentiality.
Q. Why are communications issues still so important in corporate surveys?
A. It is reasonable that each new generation of management has its own ideas on how to inform employees of company developments, but it is unreasonable for them not to bother to listen to requests for specific information at difficult times. Face to face contact in small groups on a regular basis remains the best way of discussing problems openly. Corporate videos alone with the latest buzzwords attempting to "reach out" frankly don't work, and corporate awaydays hugging trees should frighten shareholders into questioning management sanity.
Q. Is consultation improving?
A. Statutory requirements have given this some impetus, but some managers find it difficult to recognise that staff may often have the best ideas to solve problems. On the other hand, some employees find it hard to provide support to their bosses, and love the water-cooler gossip about how awful they allegedly are. Learning to manage upwards to help influence frantic bosses should be a skill that is taught and developed for all young people joining the workforce. Bosses generally do like new ideas from below so long as their positions are not threatened: new graduates learn to be happy that their ideas are used even if they are not always acknowledged.
Q. Is HR influence growing?
A. Slowly. It depends so much on the skills and attitudes of the individual senior HR practitioners and how sceptical CEOs can be influenced. But good HR people at work are supposed to be adept at relationship building with even the most difficult people, and to use non-threatening metrics to demonstrate where value can be added. They do need to understand their businesses though: many years ago I pressed for a couple of days working in my employer's factory much to the amusement of the tough MD and the cynical shop steward. It paid dividends a year later when a dispute threatened. Since then, this process has always helped, even if such time nowadays with a client is non-chargeable!
Q. Is employment legislation helping?
A. When anti-discrimination legislation is applied sensibly, it does have a positive impact. However if competent management is paralysed into inactivity in dealing with, for example, poor performance for fear of causing offence, then you have real problems. Likewise, if staff abuse the protection they have and start threatening companies, then management end up spending time on non-productive activities. Again, there have been instances where white employees are fearful of complaining about difficult minority colleagues for fear of being accused of breaking the law. It is important that staff at all levels are trained not just in the basics of the legislation but in what constitutes acceptable work behaviours. Performance review discussions can be used to check on possible issues, while I have found that my more wide-ranging annual people audits for organisations can pick up early nervousness.
Q. What metrics can be used to justify your external help with, say, senior grievance investigations?
A. This may be justified simply by senior people not having time/resource or being conflicted anyway; or by the case requiring an objective/ independent view. But it is possible to show that in principle if a really senior manager is diverted into hearing a grievance in another division, there is real cost and a risk of a loss of company income or organisational productivity. Notionally, I have it found it a useful rule of thumb that the value created by a typical senior executive should be at least three to four times their total all-up annual employment costs. If you take a key executive away from the day job for some five days or more, that value becomes negative. The costs of the external help can be compared with that, with the benefit of some added potential from the specialist for lowering risks, mediation and additional value in identifying changes needed.
Q. Are businesses getting better at training?
A. Slowly, where managers quantify the investment in the training, clarify aims, and evaluate outcomes. These outcomes have to be evaluated both immediately and some months later. It is often possible to quantify expected and actual outcomes in financial terms. For example, I have found that a team of competent specialists can be taken off the job for five days to bring them up to speed in knowledge and skills in a new area, with the expectation of a return on the investment of X. The cost of this training is justified if new business is then won that provides a return of X or more, probably for each of the next few years. If this doesn't happen, you need to learn why, so mistakes are not repeated. National and international quality initiatives do make a difference in establishing benchmarks when planning training.