Did you ever think that policy you introduced to protect against “shirkers” was going to cause a global crisis? Well maybe you need to think again.
Last year, Public Health England warned that unless we started to address resistance to antibiotics we could see 10 million more deaths a year within the next thirty years. At a cost of £66 trillion in lost productivity. Which is…pretty stark.
“But what does that have to do with me?”, I hear you ask. Because one of the major causes is over prescription, with levels of prescription being clearly linked with areas of higher immunity and resistance. Nearly 40% of patients now expecting to be prescribed antibiotics when they visit the GP for ailments that will cure naturally over time.
Now of course none of us like being ill and the sooner we can be back to health the better, but I can’t help thinking that organisational culture and sickness policies are also part of the problem. Many years ago I was made aware of a retailer that had a process that involved sitting on a long bench in a communal area with a sign that read, “We’re sorry you’ve been unwell, take a seat until a manager can come and speak to you”.
And of course it isn’t just the crass examples, its organisations that don’t pay waiting days, that don’t pay above statutory minimums, that change shift patterns or working hours or demand a GP note for any type of payment.
So next time you’re reviewing that policy, or you’re under pressure to make sure that you tighten up on the amount of sickness absence in your organisation, remember, our demand for always on, always available employees isn’t just ruining trust and engagement, it’s potentially ruining the world.
I read this post recently, by my friend Sukh Pabial on whether Learning and Development should be part of “HR”, or should be a stand alone function. It is a debate that raises its head on a regular basis and plays out in both L&D and Recruitment and Resourcing. With Brexit like certainty, the proponents promise abundant riches if only we were able to stand alone.
The first issue with the argument is that it never clearly defines, “HR” and instead homogenises everything else into a faceless mass that is responsible for all ills. Are we talking about employee relations, recruitment, succession planning, compensation and benefits? What exactly do they mean by “HR”?
The second issue is that it ignores the interconnectivity that is critical to successful people management in organisations. There are fundamental connections and interplay between L&D and resourcing and reward. There are issues that are raised through employee relations cases that directly inform the learning and development agenda.
Finally, it fundamentally limits the value of the L&D function by diminishing the influence, reach and resonance. In the same way that the UK risks diluting its international influence through separation from the EU, the fragmentation of the people function would fundamentally do the same.
The key in all of these issues is building better understanding, closer alliances that act in the interests of all parties and a united front that acts in the best interests of the people that we are there to serve, our employees. Not silly little tittle tattle arguments of importance that are better off left in the playground.
I was pondering this weekend on the essence of getting things done at work. Organisations are brilliant at creating structures and processes that are well-intentioned but can ultimately get in the way of actual activity. When things aren’t working the way we want, we lay another process on top to try to make sure that we get the intended result.
All of which led me to sketch out the following:
Which I think lays out the fundamentals of successful organisational activity.
Ultimately we want to have strong data and insight that allows us to understand the challenges and the options available. We need simple decision-making forums that allow the data to be discussed and actions agreed, which then have clear ownership. Wrapped around this we need to have an acceptance of accountability, responsibility for performance and the need to communicate and collaborate.
Everything else is just noise.
Seems simple when you write it out like that, doesn’t it? Or maybe I’ve missed something along the way.
When my kids were little I’d ask them to clear the table. In response they’d take their plates and put them on the side. As they grew older and with a little direction, they learnt to take other peoples’ plates too and maybe put the salt and pepper back in the cupboard. As young adults now, I consider it a win if on asking them to clear the table, they take the plates, cutlery and glasses and put them in the dishwasher, tidy away the condiments and wipe the table clear of any stains or spills.
The same instruction, different interpretations of completion.
Throughout our lives we are faced with tasks , some we are given and some we give to others. How often as leaders do we have a clear vision of completion without a clear articulating of the outcomes that we want to see? And how often do we find ourselves frustrated when we complete a task, only to be told that it doesn’t meet the requirements of others?
Our ability to successfully contract is critical to collaboration, to organisational efficiency and to the effective delivery of goals. We have to balance the clarity that we need to achieve desired outcomes, with the empowerment that is required to ensure engaged, motivated teams working with forward momentum. It’s a tricky balance. And of course, the onus is not on one party, but all of those involved.
So next time you’re handing out a task, project or objective, or alternatively next time you’re being asked to complete one. Consider what assumptions you’re making about the outcomes that you think are required. Have you clearly articulated what’s important and what is free to be determined? Being specific and clear at the beginning might take a little more time and thought, but ultimately it will improve the performance of your organisation or team.