Employee Feedback

It's always tough to tell someone they need to improve or that they're doing something wrong. But, it's tricky. How do you know that they're wrong and you're right? Is it arrogance that drives you or is there something that is generally being done wrong? As Vice President Daniels said at the end of Season 6 of 24, "You think you have all the right answers when you aren't sitting in this chair. You have all of the answers and none of the responsibility."

I think that's one of the traps in giving people feedback. You don't give someone feedback unless they've specifically asked for it, or something in your gut tells you that something needs to be said or done.

The "gut" factor, I suppose, is a mixture of your logical and emotional conscience - more or less. Most people out there in the workforce are smart. They wouldn't have the jobs they have if they weren't smart, honestly. The problem comes about when it is the norm to behave a certain way - or to respond to situations in a certain way. This is, again, defined as the company's culture. The problems come about when you introduce new people into the culture. They have a completely different viewpoint based on experience within a different culture, and that period where adjustment has to happen where one culture has to clash and integrate with another can be very turbuluent.

A company's culture is more powerful than doing the right thing. A culture of lax acceptance of standards, slow execution of processes, shift of blame, or even vulgarity in the workplace will overpower any law or right way of doing things. Among other reasons, this is why you can't introduce a quality / six sigma program into the workplace the day you arrive. To implement quality, you need to have a culture that believes in quality.

Anyhow - feedback is delicate. I believe that all feedback needs to be constructive and focused on the business. Feedback needs to never incriminate, point fingers, or name names. The positions, the entities, the dimensions and the processes need to be exposed. Weaknesses in these are what the business can change. You accomplish nothing if you insult your boss. The second he reads that you have just submarined your argument and eradicated any respect you may have gained.

But, why come to the point where you have to "formally" give feedback? Why is it such a process filled with trepidation? Well, honestly, I think it's because the person asking for the feedback has to establish a relationship with you - one of two-way communication that proves they are willing to do two-way conversation. You can not simply tell your employee your door is always open and they're always willing to talk.

Part of being a manager is playing the games out there, and giving things to your employees. Shoot the shit with them. Give them dirt. Talk a little harmless trash about something. Show them you're a little frustrated with your boss. Stick up for them in a meeting or take the blame for something they know you don't have to. They will open up to you in a heartbeat and you will have a very healthy relationship. Every boss that has done this with me I am happy to say has always been informed about my frustrations the second they happen. Once you reveal yourself to your employees and show them that you work for them as much as they work for you, you will have a much easier time managing them, and the business will benefit. Feedback won't be so scary.

Cutting Costs

I'm in the midst of doing some homework for my Advanced Cost Accounting class. One of the questions is - how would you cut costs while avoiding employee layoffs?

Well, that's an interesting question - especially with all of what's going on right now with the general dimension of the economy and the job markets. In the IT industry, there are a lot of contractors who are very specifically trained and have an expertise in a very specific technology. I find these contractors/outsourced IT agencies to be the equivalent of a "technological SWAT team." They are able to understand a specific technology and get it implemented because of their extremely focused skills.

This becomes interesting in a heterogeneous environment that is very common in IT departments - the mixed contractor/FTE phenomenon. You have contractors that are doing the equivalent of full time position the company could never afford in a full time position.

When it's time to cut costs and introduce layoffs, why cut these people first? Their contracts are time-bound as-is, and, without their specific knowledge the technology the company is trying to introduce is at best going to be in a stalemate. Why not, as a cost-cutting measure, turn these people around and focus them on areas of the company that need improvement in line with their expertise? Instead of cutting out the project they're working on, why not shift their focus toward optimization of the environment as opposed to introduction of new technology?

Seems like this would benefit both sides - a contractor gets to keep a job, and a company gets to benefit on costs already spent. The company gets to become leaner and more optimized. It sets a good framework for future implementations, too.