Chasing Crazy

“When life itself seems lunatic, who knows where madness lies?” ~Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra (Don Quixote)

Have you ever wondered why people have an insatiable appetite for more and more?  Is it a natural instinct or is it a misplaced notion that the more we have the happier we will be?  Might it be a real thirst for knowledge or, as Socrates believed, is it that most of us are filled with pride, conceit and beliefs we cling to for a sense of recognition, identity and security?  Is it the challenge and thrill of winning or the fear of losing?  Is it ambition or just greed?  I agree that there is nothing wrong with being ambitious, setting new goals, and striving for success. However, I would encourage people to slow down and take the time to appreciate what has been accomplished. Oprah Winfrey, the epitome of success, has noted, “I got so focused on the difficulty of the climb that I lost sight of being grateful for simply having a mountain to climb.” I, personally, am constantly reminded that it is important for me to stop, relish the view, and smell the roses. If only I had.  Chasing more and more for the sake of it and believing we will be happy once we get the next big thing is the perfect recipe for unhappiness, discontentment, and possibly despair.  Doing the same thing over and over and never feeling fulfilled or satisfied sounds to me like the definition of insanity attributed to Albert Einstein.

How many times have you felt like you are not successful enough, not smart enough, not beautiful or handsome enough, not fast enough, not rich enough, not funny enough, not tall enough, etc.?  Alexander Hamilton was an American statesman, politician, legal scholar, military commander, lawyer, banker, economist, and one of our country’s Founding Fathers.  Despite his extraordinary talent, knowledge and good looks, he was filled with insecurities. Upon the death of his close friend, he wrote his sister-in-law - “I am conscious of the advantages I possess.  I know I have talents and a good heart, but why am I not handsome?  Why have I not every acquirement that can embellish human nature?  Why have I not fortune, that I might hereafter have more leisure than I shall have to cultivate those improvements for which I am not entirely unfit?”  So when does the insatiable desire for more start and how does it end?

When we are children we initially are carried then put down to crawl, then walk, and eventually take off running.  We learn to ride a bicycle or balance ourselves on a skateboard to keep up with siblings and friends.  Children thirst for knowledge and crave affection, attention and recognition.  By age 11, a child’s cognitive skills have developed to the point where they can use logic to solve problems and make decisions; view the world around them; compare themselves to others; formulate opinions; and express a desire for what they want.   Work begins building the renowned “Comparison Trap.”  

As teenagers, we experience puberty; get a Nintendo, cell phone, computer, driver’s license, and part-time job.  We get our first car, go on a first date, have a girlfriend or boyfriend, sneak a kiss, and attend the high school prom. To guarantee a spot at a top tier college or university, our parents enroll us in AP classes; we participate in extracurricular activities, perform volunteer work, join club teams; have tutors; and take an SAT prep course.   All the while, work continues on building the “Comparison Trap.”  The Trap can now better distinguish between what others have that we don’t.  It is now programmed to better identify intellectual, physical, personal, psychological and material deficiencies.    

Then there is high school graduation and time to decide what to do next - so many choices, so much uncertainty, and so little information.  Do we get a full-time job and move into our own apartment;  go to a community college, trade school, or four year college or university; go to a public or private college or university; or should we enlist in the military were we will be taught a skill or trade and leave with some attractive veteran’s benefits?  Of course, why should we do any of this when we could choose a life of crime and end up wards of the criminal justice system?

Of course, with a full-time job you can afford a newer car, take vacations, go on multiple dates, and maybe even get married and start a family.  If you go to college, you can live at home and follow mom and dad’s rules; hold on to your old car; maybe have time to meet and date other college students; get a part-time job; apply for grants and student loans; eat junk and fast foods; and, if lucky, graduate in four years.  Hopefully, you will get a better paying job than your peers without a college degree so you can pay off your exorbitant student loans.  Unfortunately, the reality is the labor market is flooded with college graduates and the likelihood of getting a professional job after graduation is pretty slim.  So you will most likely either take a job that doesn’t require a college degree or start exploring graduate schools with the likelihood of incurring more debt without the guarantee of a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.     

Regardless of what you choose, there is always a question about whether or not you should have chosen a different path.  If you choose a full-time job over going to a community or four year college and university or enlisting in the military service, you wonder if you would have been happier doing what many of your peers did and pursue a college education. Maybe all you need to do is create your own business to ensure long term financial security and personal satisfaction. If you pursue an education over a full-time job, you wonder if the financial and personal sacrifices were worth it and if you have chosen the right career path and/or will ever be able to pay off your student loans   Will a graduate degree or degrees expand your professional network and open up more career options.  If you enlist in the military service, you will question whether or not the arduous training and discipline you underwent will pay off when you return to civilian life?  Will there be employment or educational opportunities available for you? Will you be able to adapt to a less rigorous and unrestricted lifestyle? Or, should you re-enlist and hope the labor market opens up?  By this time the “Comparison Trap” is fully operational. 

You begin to wonder whether or not you made the right decision. The mind begins to fill up with what if scenarios.  What if you were a different gender, a minority, younger, older, better looking, taller, thinner; chosen a different branch of the military, college or university, different major, lived on campus, joined a fraternity or sorority, had wealthy parents; and on and on and on? 

The trap is set.  By comparing ourselves to overachievers, we never feel happy or satisfied with what we accomplish.  We chase and chase only to find more to chase.  We are conditioned to seek fulfillment outside ourselves, rather than within ourselves. Regardless of one’s socio-economic status or upbringing, thanks to the media (television, newsprint, internet, etc.) we are programmed to believe that happiness comes through consumption.  The media preys on our desire for more.  A person’s worth is determined by what they are able to acquire.  People are judged by the clothes they wear, the job they have, where they live, and the car they drive.  It has been documented that people have been known to go bankrupt because they tried to acquire things a neighbor had acquired after winning the lottery.  Does declaring bankruptcy ever make someone happy? Doesn’t that seem a little crazy? 

If we marry, usually the plan is to have a career that will support a family, settle down with your beautiful wife or handsome spouse, buy a home in a quiet and safe neighborhood, have children, and own an affordable and safe van or SUV (forget the station wagon).  As families do, in a few years we begin looking for a better job, larger home with a swimming pool, a nicer neighborhood and with good schools, a pick-up truck, and SeaDoo or WaveRunner.  As the family grows up or gets larger, the process starts over again but now we need more living space, extra bedrooms, wifi and internet, large flat screen cable televisions, home security, and an additional car.  Of course, one car has to be a luxury car that exudes success.  This lifestyle progression requires a promotion, better job and higher pay.  It also may require divorce, at least one new spouse and in-laws, and, perhaps, additional children resulting from the need to merge families.  No wonder there is a higher rate of alcoholism, drug abuse, mental illness, bankruptcy, and spousal abuse.  It is well documented that the mind is nothing more than a “wanting machine.” The more we believe we lack, the unhappier we become.  The more we trust this neurotic nonsense the greater the loss of our ability to differentiate between need and want. 

What is so fascinating about our insatiable appetite for more is that this is not unique to our generation.   In 935 BC Ecclesiastes, the Old Testament Book of Wisdom, was written.  The book describes how meaningless everything is.  Reid S. Monaghan writes in ”Chasing the Wind” that “Ecclesiastes” is a reflection on life from a person who had it all.  He did it all and questioned it all during his life journey.  He had more money than Bill Gates and more girls gone wild to fulfill all the lusts of his youth.  To put it in our terms, he was ‘successful’ in every way.”  “I have seen everything that is done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity, a chasing after the wind… Ecclesiastes 1:15.” Monaghan goes on to point out that according to the Preacher in the book, our lives are spent in the chase for meaning and futile endeavors… “All our toys, accomplishments, bank accounts, fame and glory will vanish and there will be no remembrance of you.”  In Ecclesiastes 2, “The Wise and Foolish”, we find “So I decided to compare wisdom with foolishness and madness (for who can do this better than I, the King?)  I thought, wisdom is better than foolishness, just as light is better than darkness.  For the wise can see where they are going, but fools walk in the dark.  Yet I saw that the wise and the foolish share the same fate.  Both will die.  So I said to myself, ‘Since I will end up the same as the fool, what’s the value of all my wisdom? This is all so meaningless!’  For the wise and the foolish both die.  The wise will not be remembered any longer than the fool.  In the days to come, both will be forgotten.”

For Aristotle happiness is a final end or goal that encompasses the totality of one's life. It is not something that can be gained or lost in a few hours, like pleasurable sensations. It is more like the ultimate value of your life as lived up to this moment, measuring how well you have lived up to your full potential as a human being. 

Pope Francis offered advice for being a happier person – stop trying to convert people to your own particular beliefs.  Top ten tips for a happier life:

·         Live and let live.

·         Be giving of yourself to others. Stagnant water becomes putrid.

·         Proceed calmly in life. 

·         A healthy sense of leisure. 

·         Sundays should be holidays. 

·         Find innovative ways to create dignified jobs for young people. 

·         Respect and take care of nature.

·         Stop being negative.

·         Don’t proselytize; respect others’ beliefs. 

·         Work for peace. 

The Dalai Lama, a spiritual leader who travels the world teaching his Tibetan brand of Buddhism, had this to say about how to achieve pleasure and happiness: “We all want happiness, not suffering, and as a consequence we have to see if the mind can be transformed… There’s no reason to feel low or demoralized; much better to be confident and optimistic… I believe compassion to be one of the few things we can practice that will bring immediate and long-term happiness to our lives. I’m not talking about the short-term gratification of pleasures like sex, drugs or gambling (although I’m not knocking them), but something that will bring true and lasting happiness. The kind that sticks.”

We have to remind ourselves that being ambitious and striving to better oneself does not mean that we are chasing crazy.  Wisdom cautions us to seek happiness for happiness sake.  To not enjoy the climb or personal achievements is merely to waste the precious time we have to live life to its fullest.  We have it within ourselves to define happiness and not allow ourselves to get caught in the “Comparison Trap.”  In the end, no one really cares.

Are you still chasing crazy?

Life After the Pandemic

”When we rebuild a house, we are rebuilding a home. When we recover from disaster, we are rebuilding lives and livelihoods.” Sri Mulyani Indrawati, Economist

Wikipedia defines a crisis as “any event that is going to lead to an unstable and dangerous situation affecting an individual, group, community, or whole society.”  The 2019-2020 coronavirus pandemic is a world-wide crisis for which the world was ill-prepared to cope with.  Why was the United States not prepared?  Having survived wars, a 1918 influenza pandemic, various natural HIV, H1N1, Hepatitis A, E. coli, Legionnaires’ Disease, civil unrest, and major economic downturns, did we become complacent and over-confident?  Can we attribute the lack of preparedness to hubris and a false sense of security? 

The coronavirus pandemic is a wake-up call and reminder that crises are always looming. Crises demand decisive leadership and action, a sense of urgency, emergency planning, risk assessment, on-going training, crisis simulations, teamwork, and a communication strategy. There also is a critical need to build trust and model behavior; engage and empower employees; gather and analyze data; formulate and communicate a vision and mission; develop culture change strategies; and conduct periodic reviews of the emergency preparedness plan to ensure it remains current with organization, culture and employee changes.  As we are learning, we can never be too prepared for a crisis. The bad news is the coronavirus pandemic has crippled the economy; unemployment and anxiety are up; toilet paper is hard to find; medical facilities are overburdened; businesses, bars, restaurants, municipalities, schools, universities, places of worship, amusement and recreational centers are closed; our beloved American sports programs are on hold; conspirator theorist abound; and, sadly, people are dying.  The good news is traffic is light; fuel prices are dropping; the air is cleaner; crime is down; people are more respectful to each other and keeping their distance; residents are exploring their neighborhoods and checking on neighbors; the young are shopping for the elderly; and families are coming together.  Even the bears, deer, coyotes, mountain lions, and other wild life are roaming freely in beautiful Yosemite Valley. As Julio Vincent Gambuto has aptly noted, this pandemic has quieted the incessant urban tumult that inhibits our ability to define what we would like our communities and lifestyles to look like for future generations. 

Our country’s history, going back to the American Revolutionary War, is replete with wars, epidemics, economic downturns, and natural disasters.  Fortunately, in each situation the United States has rallied and comeback stronger as a result.  This is true for other countries throughout the world who have tackled daunting challenges.  In the mid-19th century, London struggled against cholera. A beneficial outcome of the crisis was London getting to install more sewers so that people’s drinking water was not mixing with waste. In 1946, after WWII, Britain was bankrupt and much of continental Europe was in ruins.  The British were struggling with what it would take to survive this dreadful crisis.  There was no vision or plan to stop Stalin, rebuild Europe and secure the commitment of the United States to both objectives.  It took Winston Churchill’s “resilience, creativity and imaginative daring” to inspire and motivate the British to persevere and prevail.  Germany and Belgium also recovered from the WWII devastation by promoting a free market, a slight degree of progression in the income tax system, and government antitrust laws that prevented monopolies.  Similarly, Japan aggressively rebuilt its nation by adopting a new constitution that guaranteed civil liberties, labor rights and women suffrage.  U.S. sponsored measures during post-war occupation of Japan contributed to the economy’s performance by increasing competition.  In addition, Japan, with assistance from the U.S., was committed to rebuilding lost industrial capacity, increased competition, and the creation of an educational system that accelerated modernization processes and a technologically advanced economy positioning it to become a global economic power.  These are just some examples of how countries took advantage of opportunities created by crises to effectuate positive and enduring change.  We have to keep in mind that these changes did not happen overnight.  Sacrifices had to be made; trust built; risks taken; change embraced; partnerships forged; results attained; successes celebrated; and bounties shared. 

I associate crisis with change. To truly effectuate change, metaphorically speaking, a pendulum has to swing dramatically one way or the other. Why?  Unfortunately, organizations’ pervasive view of change is “if it isn’t broke, why fix it?” Employees seek stability and order and will do whatever they can to resist or slow down the pendulum’s momentum.  Knowingly or subconsciously change is resisted.  Once the pendulum is set in motion, the goal becomes to stop the swing and return it to its prior resting place.  This then is referred to as bringing things back to “normal.”  Insinger in the Future of Supervision, 2015, believes that after a crisis you need to get back to normal. Doing so reduces the likelihood of creating real and lasting changes. That is why organizations opt for incremental changes; these are the least disruptive and the most acceptable. 

Nonetheless, if an organization chooses, a crisis does provide an opportunity to make changes – culturally and systemically.    For those who seek positive and lasting change, back to the metaphor, the hope is that the pendulum will swing up far enough so when the natural forces come into play the pendulum’s momentum will stop high enough to create a  “new normal.” Korvitz argues that “the longer the crisis lasts, the greater the likelihood a paradigm shift will become inevitable.” He goes on to note that “…this process can be wrenching…” and takes place within the “span of a generation.”  So the question is how much instability and disruption can we endure. Do we only want to return to normal or do we want to seize the opportunity a pandemic affords us and create a real “new normal” that focuses on more efficient and effective organizations and an improved quality of life for all?  My vote is for the latter. Of course, this is both tricky and risky. 

As we hear and learn about the coronavirus, we are alarmed at the toll this virus is taking on the lives of people and economies around the world.  The goal is to get us back to normal quickly providing medical supplies, testing, financial assistance, jobs, and the freedom to roam and congregate.  What we don’t hear is how this virus will be contained and what organizations will do to recover from the crisis, create jobs, and rebuild our economy while improving our environment and quality of life.  On April 17, 2020, the Santa Monica Mirror reported that there is signed petition for firing the City of Santa Monica city manager and assistant city manager. The city manager had recommended staff reductions and the elimination of non-essential services to deal with the projected $300 million stemming from the loss of revenues due to the coronavirus.   Two days later the city manager resigned stating “If I have to be the scapegoat for this, if I have to be the teller of bad news, I am prepared to do that, because that’s my job under the charter.”  The Mayor of Los Angeles recently warned in his State of the City address “that the economic downturn facing Los Angeles will be more painful than the 2008 recession, requiring cuts to government programs and the furlough of thousands of city employees.”  Similar actions also are being proposed by universities, school districts, large corporations and medium and small businesses throughout California and the country. Every entity is seeking financial assistance from state and Federal governments to stimulate the economy. 

More than just financial assistance will be needed to stimulate local economies and foster confidence in our government and leaders. Winston Churchill provided us with the roadmap - leadership, resilience, creativity, and imaginative daring. Jim Collins has provided the mantra - this is the time for “Big, Hairy, and Audacious Goals.” It starts with doing the right things rather than what might be considered politically correct or ideologically motivated. We need clear and decisive leadership and a vision that seems achievable and reasonable rather than a future filled with uncertainty.  Trust needs to be built, earned and maintained.  Open, honest, active communication and transparency are paramount.  Decisions should be made with compassion, respect and fairness.  Benjamin Franklin reminds us that “it takes many good deeds to build a good reputation and only one bad one to lose it.” 

We have to persevere, be prepared to face adversity, and willing to sacrifice and pull together.  Patience is a virtue; resiliency a strength.  Only through inclusion, cooperation and collaboration can we move our organizations and society forward.  Teamwork is not merely a cliché; it is a necessity.  We have to be open-minded, accepting of differences of opinions, and willing to take chances yet cognizant of the risks.    Remember there are no bad ideas and mistakes should be considered learning experiences.  This is the time to embrace creative ways of achieving a desired end and the “new normal.”  We cannot be fettered by how things have always been done but excited about imagining new ways of doing things.  Technology can certainly help.

I would be remiss in not mentioning things I think organizations can do to help smooth the path to a “new normal.” 

·         Strategic plans should be developed or updated to reflect revised goals, short and long-term objectives and timelines in response to the coronavirus pandemic.

·         Concerns of displaced workers should be allayed by involving employees and employee unions and association in developing a fair and equitable recovery action plan.

·         Human Resources staff should be reassigned to outplacement roles to advise and support employees about outside employment opportunities, prepare and coach employees about application and resume preparation, solicit information from potential employers about essential core competencies, provide employees with mock interviews, and obtain feedback from employers about why the employee was selected or what the employee could have done better to obtain a position. 

·         Communication lines should be open and active.

·         Core services should be defined, identified, explained and understood.

·         Organization design should be evaluated for improvement in communication, collaboration, workflow, productivity, efficiency, redundancy, and accountability.

·         Job restructuring and redesign studies should be conducted and staffing plans developed.

·         Performance metrics should be established.

·         Job sharing and part-time employment opportunities should be offered.

·         Telecommuting should continue to be offered as an alternative to working on site. 

·         Technological enhancements should be on-going.

·         Underwriting current employee small businesses ventures to perform services currently performed by full-time employees should be explored  This would entail awarding exclusive contracts to these businesses for such functions as public information, job advertising and outreach, data gathering and analysis, landscaping services, auto repair and maintenance, painting, janitorial services, etc.

·         Whenever possible employees should be recognized and rewarded for their accomplishments, resiliency, creativity and imagination.

Should Organizational Culture and Organizational Fit Really Be Used To Select Employees?

When conducting executive searches, we invariably are asked to make sure candidates understand the “organization’s culture.” Theoretically, their “culture” represents the organization’s values, beliefs and guiding principles for employees to embrace. (As an aside, I’m always fascinated by how organizations somehow take on a human life although they are really inanimate objects. Oh well…) Furthermore, in screening qualified candidates we are expected to assess whether or not a candidate will fit into the “organizational culture.” Sounds simple enough to do, right?  No!  This could be made easy if the client themselves had clearly defined what they mean by “organizational culture” and “organizational fit.”  Unfortunately, we have not found this to be the case. 

Why is this so?  To begin with, both organizational culture and organizational fit are nebulous terms often subjective and open to interpretation. SHRM, in an article entitled “Understanding and Developing Organization Culture”, asserts that an organization’s culture is simply based on values and behaviors derived from basic assumptions about such things as:

·         Human nature – Are people inherently good or bad, proactive or reactive?

·         An organization’s relationship to its environment – How does it define and serve its stakeholders?

·         Appropriate emotions – What emotions should employees be encouraged to express, and which should be suppressed?

·         Effectiveness – How do you measure if the organization and its individual components are doing well?

Absent a clear definition, terms used to describe an organization’s culture are things like aggressive, team oriented, customer-focused, ethical and trustworthy, merit based, equal opportunity, innovative, forward thinking, hierarchical, bureaucratic, process-oriented, outcome based, risk-taking, fun, and family-friendly.  Terms like these are taken as definitions for organizational culture and often used as criteria for who gets selected and promoted; the way employees interact; how customers are served; how knowledge is gained and shared; how information is disseminated; productivity metrics; receptiveness to change; and acceptance of workforce diversity. Edgar Schein (1992), T.E. Deal and A.A. Kennedy (2000) and J.P. Kotter (1992) have found that although an organization may believe they have defined a unique culture, only to learn there often are co-existing and conflicting organizational sub-cultures. These sub-cultures may stem from differences in management styles, organization structures, accepted past practices and traditions, position in the hierarchy, work locations, work schedules, personal values and biases, life experiences, educational levels, and socio-economic backgrounds.  Clashes between an organizational culture and its sub-culture can create challenges for an organization in communicating and maintaining a consistent message about organizational vision, values, mission, goals, objectives, and even strategic initiatives. 

Over the years, I have cautioned clients to be careful about placing too much emphasis and weight on organizational culture and organizational fit when selecting employees.  Instead, I have recommended the selection process focus on a candidate’s knowledge, skills, breath of experience, past performance and accomplishments, the potential for growth, and desired values and behaviors.  Regardless, I have found that an inordinate amount of time is spent focusing on the meaning of fit. When queried about the meaning of fit, the conversation quickly turns to a discussion of personal characteristics and personality rather than values and behavior.    When there is uncertainty about fit, organizational psychologists are retained to administer psychological assessments like Myers Briggs, Disc Behavior Inventory, and Occupational Interest Inventories.  These are tools used by clients to help determine if a person’s personality and behavior are compatible with others in the organization. They are merely for consideration and discussion and not for final determination of a person’s qualification for a position.  Clients do seriously consider the results when making decisions about fit.   In researching organizational fit, like organizational culture, we have found there is no single accepted definition of organizational fit.  It is often used as a “catch-all” term for hiring authorities to justify their decision.  Organizations need to be careful about making blank statements like “they’re just not the right fit.”

In an open blog entitled by Courtney Seiter, she cautions that culture fit can unknowingly be an exclusive term (interpreted by me meant to keep people out) and, perhaps a way to discriminate.  Katherine Klein, professor at the Wharton School of Management remarks that “It is an incredibly vague term, and a vague term often based on gut instinct.”  She goes on to point out that although organizations will argue that cultural fit is a good criterion for hiring someone, it is more often used to not hire someone.  The potential downside of using this criterion is the risk of an organization creating a culture in which everyone is similar; or in other words a homogenous workforce.  In my opinion, this can result in a boring work environment; stifle innovation; discourage healthy discourse; slow down progress; and, over time and consistent with the second law of thermodynamics,  a closed system will create entropy that will result in a lack of order or predictability; gradually decline into disorder; and ultimately be the demise of the organization. 

Recently, there have been many articles published in professional journals about the pros and cons of hiring Millennials, and the challenges organizations face in managing and integrating them into organizations.  For me this is déjà vu.  It reminds me of how my generation was viewed in the 60’s.  Of course, the consensus was we were too liberal to work for well-established organizations but good enough to serve in Viet Nam.  Millennials have become the largest, most diverse generation in U.S. history.  If what is written about Millennials is true, they are not interested in being part of a “cookie cutter team.”   For them, this is making organizations perceived as homogeneous a less desirable place to work.  This perception may result in an organization missing out on talent at a time when we need a workforce with new, innovative, and progressive ways to deal with a multitude of economic, environmental, educational, technological, ecological, and epidemic perils.

Throughout my early professional career, I was sensitive to, but accepting of, the lack of diversity in top management.  I could see that top management in organizations was predominately white males with similar views, backgrounds, interests, predispositions, and ambitions. The two exceptions were in human resources management (personnel) and customer service/relations.  These two professional disciplines permitted women to rise through management ranks until they crashed into the glass ceiling.  Never did I hear a manager express concerns about unequal treatment of minorities and women. In fact, males made jokes about this.  I remember being told by a regional manager of a major insurance company that “here there’s the right way of doing things; the wrong way of doing things; and our way of doing things.  If you want to last, you will do things our way.”  As the only minority in the management training program at the time, it didn’t take long for me to figure out I better do things “their way.”  As Tom Dalzell and Terry Victor cite in “The Concise New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English” 2nd ed. (2015) it was all about FIFO (“Fit in or Fuck Off”). 

In one major, highly diverse city I found that its Police Department’s executive management team was made up of white males, at least 6’2” tall, wore dark suits and button-down shirts, had short hair, and were in great physical shape.  If lucky, a minority male police officer could promote to Captain and a female police officer might promote to Sergeant before retiring.  The Fire Department was not much different.  What is important to note is that the organizations I am citing touted the importance of organizational fit in their hiring and promotions.  They were completely unaware that their paternalistic, “cooking cutter” culture was perpetuating disparities in hiring, promotions, compensation and other terms of employment.  FIFO was a widely accepted mantra.   Over time, these practices became fodder for allegations of discrimination resulting in anti-discrimination laws and affirmative action programs. 

A Northwestern University survey of hiring managers found that the decision makers tended to hire people who were the most like them and who had similar personalities, backgrounds and interests.  Essentially, they were hiring their “best friend” rather than the best person for the job. In “Hiring for Cultural Fit?” (2017) Shannon Gauspohl states “if you’re so concerned and wrapped up in what type of person you are looking for to fit your organization, you may be losing out… Many companies miss out on an amazing candidate by hiring to many employees that are just like them.”  In my opinion, isn’t it better to have an open system that focuses on valid job related competencies that better align the organization with its vision, mission, goals and objectives.

Fortunately, we are learning that a healthy workplace needs to be made up of individuals with different perspectives and approaches to problem solving and the delivery of services to our diverse communities and stakeholders.  The challenge for policy makers is to ensure their organizations reflect the wonderful diversity of their communities and stakeholders. Executives and managers should take advantage of this opportunity to provide leadership and model the behavior necessary to guide a multi-generation workforce made up of different ages, genders, gender preferences, ethnicities, ages, religions, educations, and cultural backgrounds.  This is the kind of leadership that will build trust, hope, cooperation, coordination, collaboration and optimism needed to overcome this daunting pandemic.

The Importance of Trust to an Organization

After 40 plus years of working for and with private and public organizations, I have found a steady erosion of trust among boards of directors, elected and appointed officials, executives, senior management, employees, and organized labor.  Consumer and customer confidence in products and services regardless of whether or not they are provided by government continues to wane.  Organizational values such as integrity, respect, courtesy, transparency, innovation, and quality service are noble but absent trust they are rendered meaningless.

So why is trust so important at work?  Steven Covey believes that “Trust is the glue of life.  It’s the most essential ingredient in effective communication.  It is the foundational principle that holds all relationships together.”  When trust is present, people step forward and do their best work, together, and efficiently.  They have a common purpose, take risks, think out of the box, have each other’s backs, and communicate openly and honestly.  What I have seen is when trust is absent, people jockey for position, do not share information, play it safe, and talk about rather than to one another (this a common human behavior that undermines teamwork).  Trust is very fragile.  It is easy to break, easy to lose and one of the hardest things to get back.  As children we are encouraged to trust and respect others – parents, relatives, teachers, doctors, religious leaders, police officers, fire fighters, etc. However, what we learn as we mature is there simply is no trust without risk; trust without risk is an oxymoron. Benito Mussolini said “It’s good to trust others but, not to do so is much better.”  It certainly is less risky.

The literature identifies three types of trust: 1) Strategic Trust – trust employees have in leaders to make the right strategic decisions, 2) Personal Trust – trust employees have in their managers to treat employees fairly, and 3) Organizational Trust – the trust employees have in the organization itself and not in an individual.  When assessing Organizational Trust employees are assessing whether the organization makes good policy decisions, develops well designed processes, and/or keeps its promises.  The three types of trust are interconnected; any time someone in a leadership or management position violates one type of trust, it will most certainly adversely affect an employee’s perception of the other types of trust. For years I have reminded executives that trust must be earned and continuously measured.  Robert Galford and Anne Seibold Drapeau (HBR, February 2003) observed that if employees think an organization acted in bad faith, they will rarely forgive and they surely will never forget.

Don Meinert (SHRM, May 24, 2018) reported that of 1,202 U.S. working-age adults surveyed, 23 percent said they would offer more ideas and solutions, and 21 percent said they would be willing to work longer hours, if they trusted their leaders.  Furthermore, 33 percent  indicated they would stay longer with an employer if its leaders kept their promises, and 28 percent said they would extend their tenure if transparency was practiced at all levels.  These are interesting findings especially for an organization experiencing a high turn-over rate.

This begs the question, should organizations invest time and resources in building trust?  Will organizations reap their ROI?  My answer is yes!  First of all, organizations have to recognize that the lack of trust is contributing to employee skepticism, job dissatisfaction, low morale, sick-time abuse, turnover, lost productivity, and increased allegations of favoritism and discrimination.  Organizations we have worked with and studied usually attribute this behavior to a leadership void, mismanagement, outdated or poorly thought out policies, unclear mission and goals, lack of consensus on the nature of a problem, inflexible merit systems, poor labor/management relations, passive/aggressive behavior, hubris and arrogance, unrealistic organization expectations, millennials, fear of change, and poor communication.  And the list goes on and on.

For some reason, organizations are reticent to acknowledge the root cause of this behavior is a lack of trust. Galford and Seibold asked a group of managers whether they and their closest managerial colleagues are trustworthy and most will claim that they themselves are trustworthy and most of their colleagues are as well.  Why - because “I am straight with their people” or “she keeps her promises”.  When they later asked these managers whether they thought they and their colleagues were capable of building trust within the organization, a sizable percentage said they have little or no confidence in the group’s capacity to build and maintain trust.  This would suggest that the lack of trust is not because they themselves are not trustworthy but rather the inability of the group to be trusted.

Rather than focusing on strategies for building trust, organizations will focus on organizational performance or management systems deficiencies.  Resources are allocated for efficiency and effectiveness studies, performance metrics, leadership and management training, staff development, employee recognition, team building, employee relations, workforce diversity training, strategic planning, and employee engagement.  Greater emphasis is placed on employee performance evaluations, technology enhancements, greater transparency, flexible work schedules, work/life balance, telecommuting, and equal employment opportunities for all.  Oftentimes, organizations are reorganized, non-performers are disciplined and ineffective leaders and managers are either terminated or replaced.  What we have found is these are band aid approaches intended to mitigate the adverse effects of the perceived problems.  Building trust within an organization and externally with customers and other stakeholders served by the organization will go a long way to helping an organization identify the real problems.

What can an organization do to build trust?  David Horsager, CEO of Trust Edge Leadership Institute recommends the following 8 C’s –

1.     Clarity. Give employees a clear vision of where you want to go and what their role is. 

2.     Compassion. Leaders who care more about others than themselves inspire trust.

3.     Character.  Choose to do what’s right rather that what’s easy.

4.     Competency.  Stay relevant and capable.

5.     Commitment.  Stick with your employees in the face of adversity.

6.     Connection.  Cultivate strong relationships with workers.

7.     Contribution.  Produce results.

8.     Consistency.  What one does all the time shapes what others expect of us.

Amanda Setilli (Career Press, 2017) provides some common mistakes organizations make that destroy trust –

1.     Avoiding conflict.  Discouraging disagreements stifles open discussions.

2.     Breaking promises.  When you do not follow through on things you say you are going to do.

3.     Focusing on compliance.  Instead of implementing layers of rigid rules share the end goal and trust employees will do the right thing.

4.     Failing to communicate.  It’s always better to tell the truth than to be silent.  Employees want honesty.

5.     Assuming trust.  Work diligently on trust, build trust and check to be sure it is there. 

The takeaway for this is that too little trust and too much fear in a workplace results in a toxic work environment.  We, as a society, are now living with a human virus that is threatening the world and fosters fear and uncertainty.  Daily we are asked to trust our national leaders to be transparent about the health risk of this virus and what is being done ensure the health and welfare of all Americans.  We watch and listen closely to what is being communicated to avoid panic and mitigate fear.  We are being asked to trust our national leaders to make sound decisions and do the right thing.  This brings to mind a famous quote of Friedrich Nietzche that I hope we will never have to reiterate - “I’m not upset that you lied to me.  I’m upset that from now on I can’t believe you.”

360-Degree Assessments vs. Traditional Performance Evaluations

Organizations typically use performance evaluations to measure employee performance, establish performance goals, and, if appropriate, approve salary increases.  Traditionally, responsibility for rating an employee is delegated solely to an employee’s direct supervisor.  Supervisors are provided a performance evaluation instrument developed by a Human Resources Department and approved by top management.  Oftentimes, supervisors receive little if any formal training on how to rate job related competencies and/or communicate the results to an employee.  I once had a line supervisor come into my office in tears.  When asked what the problem was, she said she had to evaluate her staff and was fearful of doing so.  She had never been trained on how to complete the evaluation form and was afraid employees would no longer like or respect her.  As you will see, she is not alone.  Employee performance appraisal is an annual process that triggers dread and apprehension in the most experienced, well tested managers.

Despite employees saying they want to know how well they are doing, employees receiving appraisals are known not to look forward to the experience. In fact, research has shown that employees enjoy performance appraisal about as much as a trip to the dentist, but at least the dentist gives them something for the pain. If not done properly, performance appraisals can create anxiety and cause an employee to worry about their job security, organizational fit, promotability and possibly unfair or biased ratings.  In “The Top 50 Problems with Performance Appraisals” by Dr. John Sullivan, Talent Management and HR, Jan. 31, 2011, he provides a list the most serious performance appraisal problems:

·         Focus on the person rather than assessing actual performance.

·         Infrequent employee feedback to address performance problems.

·         Non-data-based assessment that relies 100% on memory.

·         Lack of effective metrics.

·         Lack of manager accountability for not providing accurate or job related data.

In my experience and review of various performance appraisal methodologies, there is no magic bullet for doing employee evaluations that make everyone happy.  It’s important to note that performance evaluations are not even mandated by the U.S. Department of Labor.  So why do them if they are merely a matter of importance to management and employees.  The short answer is they are essential for organizational efficiency and effectiveness, employee morale, labor relations, and the quality of an organization’s work life.  If done right, they can be an excellent means for communicating with employees about organization goals and mutual expectations, obtaining employee buy-in, recognizing and rewarding outstanding performance, and even strategic planning.  They also can be used by both management and employees to either support or challenge disciplinary actions. According to Derek Irvine, “What do employees really think about performance reviews?”, TNLT, Sept. 2013, 78% of employees surveyed say what they want from a performance evaluation is help developing skills and correcting problems.  In addition 90% of employees see positive feedback as more motivating. 

The current private sector and non-profit trend favors utilization of a 360-Degree Performance Assessment. 360-Degree Performance Assessments are a process through which feedback from a supervisor or manager’ subordinates, colleagues, and other stakeholders as well as if appropriate a self-evaluation by the employee themselves is obtained. Whereas the traditional manner of evaluating an employee’s performance is the responsibility of the immediate supervisor, the 360-Degree Performance Assessment involves multiple internal and external stakeholders.  This approach is believed to be more inclusive, is focused more on positive rather than negative attributes, identifies areas for improvement, and promotes teamwork amongst the various stakeholders.  The process solicits feedback about an employee’s behavior and performance from a variety of points of view.  Studies suggest that over 1/3 of U.S. companies use some type of multi-source feedback.  Others estimate that closer to 90% of all Fortune 500 firms do this. This has been fueled as internet-based services have become standard in corporate development. 

There is a question about whether or not 360-Degree Assessments should be used for employee development and performance evaluation.  Concerns have been expressed about feedback providers’ motivations and subjectivity, differences in raters’ perspectives of the work performed, and if raters can fairly evaluate attainment of work goals and organization objectives.  I have been told by one municipal executive that 360-Degree Assessments can be the perfect opportunity for disgruntled employees to take potshots at supervisors and managers.  Whereas these assessments can potentially affect opinions about the need for employee development, they certainly could influence future employment decisions and ultimately result in litigation. 

Organizations need to remember that 360-Degree Assessments are intended to develop leadership talent.  They are not intended to take corrective action against an employee.  If used to take corrective action, it will be viewed negatively and met with trepidation and resistance.  A 360-Degree Assessment needs to be viewed by all employees as a welcomed tool for soliciting honest and candid rater feedback from diverse stakeholders that will be helpful to an employee learning and developing new skills.  As with traditional Performance Evaluation processes, 360-Degree Assessments requires employee buy-in, an implementation plan,  investment in proper development of the assessment tool, open and transparent communication with employees, rater education and training, periodic assessment of the tool, and rater anonymity and confidentiality.

Research has shown that 360-Degree Assessments and performance appraisals get at different outcomes.  This suggests that traditional performance appraisals as well as 360-Degree feedback should be used in evaluating overall performance.  The more feedback on employee performance an organization gets the better.  My experience with both traditional Performance Appraisals and 360-Degree Assessments has been they both are valuable to the organization and employees if properly developed, implemented and taken seriously by top management, employees, and employee representatives.  I am reminded of a conversation I had with a labor representative of a major transit system.  He said that their union is also concerned about poor performing members.  A bad employee is often a bad member of a union or association.  The 360-Degree Assessment takes more time and cost more money than a traditional Performance Assessment instrument.  I am currently working with an organization that has used the traditional instrument in a very productive and constructive manner.  Annual reviews are conducted and semi-annual progress reviews are regularly scheduled.  This approach has been very effective in building trust, improving communication and supporting succession planning.