Over the years, the
terms used to describe staff and employees in businesses have changed. We have
moved from "personnel" to "human resources" (HR) and now
"human capital”. Other phrases, such as "talent management" have
also emerged. These terms can appear to be dehumanizing. That is why some HR
manager titles include the word "people" in preference to "human
resources".
The important point
is the mindset behind the organization’s operation. If people are valued, and
all management and leadership actions demonstrate that, then the terminology is
not so important. People are still the most important asset. The importance of people in organizations and discusses
some issues relating to the achievement of high levels of performance for human
resources.
Are managers mean?
Many employees seem to think that
they are. In training sessions over the last twenty years, in both the public
and private sectors alike and received some comments criticizing managers for
being uncaring, inconsiderate and bombastic or the like.
Comments on participant training
evaluation forms have included comments like "this training should be compulsory for all managers". Such comments show
that employees believe that managers need to develop their interpersonal and
leadership skills. They also indicate concerns about the way employees feel
they are managed. When such concerns are discussed with participants, a better
picture emerges. Often some clarification is required. Sometimes
misunderstandings have occurred.
Unfortunately, this does not negate
the impact of negative feelings in the first place. Perception is different to
reality, but it is perception that guides feelings. If employees have a
perception which is negative, then morale and performance will suffer.
So what can managers do?
The first thing is to be very
conscious of how statements and actions may be perceived. Managerial actions
must match the rhetoric. Employees look for the behaviour that supports the
words. Many people can quote examples of managers talking about the importance
of customer service whilst simultaneously slashing operating budgets. This
mismatch between the rhetoric and actions constantly undermines the attempts
made by organisations to bring about cultural change.
Secondly, any consultant will tell
you that the most frequently mentioned problem in most organizations is
communication. Communication flow throughout the organisation is essential.
Communication channels need to be adjusted for the more fluid organizational
structures and the new technologies.
Thirdly, managers need to pay
constant attention to the people issues, particularly in environments of
change. Most people do not like change being forced on them. Some are used to
change. Some welcome it, particularly if they play a role in determining and
implementing it. The emphasis nowadays on increased participation in the
workplace is partly a reflection of the environment of constant change. We need
participation to reduce the stress change causes.
Many organizations are experiencing
relatively high employee turnover, but managers are saying they do not have the
time to investigate the reasons. These warning signs may require investigation,
particularly remembering the old adage that symptoms may mask the real problem.
One of my favourite stories as a trainer concerns the maintenance manager who
was constantly asked to check the air conditioning in certain sections of a
large office building. Sometimes he was asked back regularly because employees
were constantly complaining about being too hot or too cold. His equipment
consistently found the temperature to be correct. Later he realized that the
temperature complaints were symptoms of a problem, the real problem being with
the workgroup itself. There were real problems with their morale and the
organisation culture was not right. The problem manifested itself indirectly.
One of the key issues now is
increased workload across all organizational levels. Increased workload has
arisen because of restructuring, downsizing, increased responsibilities etc.
A real difficulty is determining
whether a person has too much work, or alternatively, is inefficient or
ineffective. People can innocently confuse "busyness" with efficiency
or effectiveness. It is important to review activities and processes to assess
their importance and contribution. Morale and organisation culture may also be
a factor.
One important factor is workload
associated with the planning and implementation of change. Often change
activities have to be run in parallel with existing systems. For example, the
old payroll system still needs to be run whilst the planning, development,
testing and implementation of a new computer payroll system over a six month
period is carried out. The need to develop a new payroll system is not a good
enough reason to stop paying people for six months! This change will place a
heavy responsibility and workload on the payroll officer. Additional staff
support may be required or maybe it is possible to carry the additional
workload for six months. However, if the new system took two years, would the
additional load be reasonable?
The additional work generated by
change is often the key factor in workload discussions. Workload increases
caused by change activities can be justified in the short term, particularly if
the change brings better processes and increased efficiency. Incremental change
is particularly stress free i.e. make a change, reap the benefits and increased
productivity, which then frees time for more change activity, which when
implemented, then frees more time for change, etc. This approach keeps the
workload at a very manageable level.
If however, the changes come
frequently and constantly, with little respite from normal day to day requirements,
then workload can become unmanageable. If this continues, both the employee and
the organisation suffer. These matters require constant attention, as the
damage may be hidden. For example, if customer service levels deteriorate, it
may be some time before impacts start to manifest themselves in performance
indicators.
In summary, people
should be treated as an asset rather than an expense item. Every effort should
be taken, whether formally or informally, to develop skills and abilities and
to provide opportunities for people to maximize their contribution.