In this overly litigious day and age, there aren’t many workplace acts left that are so over the line that they qualify as drop-dead, you’re-fired-on-the-spot, no-additional-proof-needed offenses.
In fact, there’s only one that readily comes to mind as I think back over a long career of managing far too many people who seemed hellbent on doing something stupid that would get them canned. You know what I’m talking about—it’s taking a punch at someone while on the job.
Generally speaking, people who get physical with other people in the workplace lose their job, and usually pretty quickly. And, that’s what is probably going to happen at The Washington Post, where a longtime editor recently blew his cool over a story and came to blows with a reporter who called him something incredibly vulgar that I can’t repeat here.
According to Washingtonian.com, “Details are sketchy, but numerous witnesses report that veteran [Washington Post] feature editor Henry Allen punched out feature writer Manuel Roig-Franzia on Friday. The fracas took place in sight of Post executive editor Marcus Brauchli’s office. Brauchli rushed to separate the two. It should be noted that Allen is nearly 70, but he served in the Marines in Vietnam. He also won a Pulitzer Prize in 2000 for criticism. Both apparently came into play when Allen jumped Roig-Franzia.”
Gentle readers will need to read the Washingtonian version (or this report from the Washington City Paper) to get the full flavor of what was said and the circumstances that led up to the comment and fistfight, but it’s safe to say that the altercation is a reflection of the pressures people are feeling in their jobs during these uncertain times.
“Hooray that there is still enough passion left somewhere in a newsroom in America for violence to break out between colorful characters in disagreement over the quality of a story. … Newsrooms used to be places filled with interesting eccentrics driven by unreasonable passions—a situation thought of as ‘creative tension’ and often encouraged by management in eras when profits were high and arrogance was seen not as a flaw but a perquisite of being smart and right. Sadly, over the years newsrooms have come to resemble insurance offices peopled by the blanched and the pinched and the beetle-browed; lately, with layoffs thought to be on the horizon, everyone also behaves extra nicely to please the boss.”
I’m old enough to remember the era that Weingarten writes about. I experienced it as a very junior editor at the old Los Angeles Herald-Examiner, a long-dead Hearst newspaper that was well-known for such eccentric and passionate newsroom behavior.
I saw fistfights in the newsroom and at the watering hole we called a bar that was just across the street, people falling-down drunk on the copy desk, and all sorts of other behavior that was casually ignored back then but that would get you quickly canned now.
It was colorful, it was fun, but mostly, it was all fueled by the intense passion people had for their work. This is what Gene Weingarten remembers, and it is an era that, for better or for worse, is long gone.
Today, passion in the workplace is defined as work that you find incredibly meaningful or challenging (known now as employee engagement), and managers are all for more of that, but they tend to draw the line at having so much passion for the job that it pushes you to punch someone in the nose.
Back in the days that Weingarten and I remember, passionately defending your work was viewed as a good thing, not something that you worried about losing your job over. Managers back then were more concerned about channeling that passion back into improving the work, and HR was only consulted when the situation got so out of hand that the line manager couldn’t control it anymore.
So, there’s almost something retro to reading about fisticuffs taking place in a major American business over part of the job that people are passionate about. Unfortunately, passion like this gets you fired today, and HR is involved at the first hint of trouble and to make sure all the legal bases are covered so no one, least of all the company, gets sued.
So it goes in the American workplace, circa 2009. You be the judge of whether that’s good or bad.
Steve is a former EEOC trial attorney and management law firm partner. His Atlanta-based company, ELI, provides “a variety of programs and services that teach professional workplace conduct, helping our clients translate their values into behaviors, increase employee contribution, build respectful and inclusive cultures, and reduce legal and ethical risk.”
He also writes a blog that gets into a lot of legal issues in the workplace, and I found this blog post he wrote this week to be especially insightful given the explosion in social networking and modern communications. I’m happy to share it with you because readers tell us that they always need good workforce legal information, so take a read on this and let me know what you think:
“I’ve wondered when it would happen—for years there have been stories of athletes, proxies for other celebrities, who say and do what they want while their behavior is ignored, minimized or attributed to ‘locker room’ humor or conduct. But the doors of locker rooms, operating rooms, broadcasting booths and boardroom suites are wide open these days; conduct that used to be tolerated in the bastions of such resident ‘untouchables’ is now falling prey to general workplace standards, publicity, business harm and personal penalties.
“Also, ESPN suspended Bob Griese for making on-air disparaging comments about a Latino racecar driver. Almost before I’d finished reading that online scoop, another story broke about Larry Johnson, a Kansas City Chiefs running back who used a homophobic slur on Twitter and while addressing reporters. At the time of this writing, Johnson has been told to stay away from the team while the NFL and the Chiefs complete their investigation.
“What’s happening here is that the transparency of modern communications is preventing such behavior, no matter who the offender, from being swept under the rug, or bed, as the case may be. So the message is simple and direct, not just for those at the middle and bottom but also for organizational leaders and ‘high’ performers.
“As we have taught in Civil Treatment, ‘Guard your words and actions.’ The more public your role, the more cautious you must be. There is no invincibility when conduct is outrageous, unprofessional and uncivil. What’s increasingly obvious is that the issue involving such conduct is not simply legal risk. ESPN’s brand has been harmed by its broadcasters’ actions, and the careers of those involved have been tarnished if not ruined, in Phillips’ case.
“Whether lawsuits are filed and ultimately dismissed or settled is almost secondary. Business and irrevocable personal harm has been done, and all of it could have been avoided if standards of professionalism and behavior had been in place and understood and applied by everyone, at all levels.”
I don’t write much about self-management in this blog, and there’s a simple reason why: It’s because this Web site, and the related newsletters, blogs and magazine, are all focused on one thing — the art of managing a workforce.
Once in a while, however, I bump into something that’s a little far afield from what I normally focus on here but is still really, really interesting. So it was today when I read this commentary from Advertising Age (a sister publication of Workforce Management) titled “How to Advance Your Career Without Selling Your Soul.”
It’s written by Joe Hodas, senior vice president of brand communications at Vladimir Jones, a privately held, full-service advertising agency in Colorado, and it struck me as an uncommonly good bit of common-sense advice whether you apply it to yourself or pass it along to those you manage.
Plus, it runs counter to a lot of the snarky “I have a blog so I know better” rants by thinly credentialed “experts” who seem to be taking over so much of the Internet today. The fact that it comes from someone like Joe Hodas, a guy who has worked for years in the trenches managing people and knows firsthand what he’s talking about, well, that just makes it must-read advice in my book.
Here are Joe’s 11 rules for managing your career, or, for you to use to help your workforce manage theirs. It’s great advice for just about anyone toiling in today’s challenging and difficult workforce:
1. Nothing replaces hard work. In an industry where smoke and mirrors are used in abundance, take heed: Nothing can disguise the absence of hard work. And don’t confuse effort with results. I don’t care how early you arrive or how late you stay—it’s about ROI.
2. We all have a personal tool kit—know yours and how to use it. As my mother told me on numerous occasions, I have special talents. Specifically, I’m a good consensus builder. You may be a killer salesman. Or extremely detailed. Whatever your “special talents” are, hone them and let them help define your personal brand.
3. It’s about teamwork, but know who is and isn’t on your team. I too hate office politics. And avoid them at all costs. Ignoring their existence is not only careless, but possibly counterproductive. Even if you don’t engage in them, someone else might on your behalf. Know who has the boss’s ear, who the players are, and who could take or leave ya. Whatever the political landscape in your company, it’s your reality and one you’ll have to navigate whether you like it or not.
4. Never lose your shit—at least not in public. Let’s play a little game of association. When I say Christian Bale, you say what? Probably not “great actor from ‘American Psycho,’ ” right? Rather, I bet you said something along the lines of “overindulged jerk who pulverized some poor sound tech on a movie set for making a mistake.” I’m not saying that we shouldn’t be human, but one single outburst—even if merited—can do permanent damage to your personal brand.
5. Life is not always a box of chocolates—so decide how much you can take before you bail. The perfect job doesn’t exist. I would imagine that even the taste-tester at Krispy Kreme has complaints about his gig (though I can’t imagine what they might be). Too often we hit tough times and jump ship for a lateral move or get frustrated and stop giving 110 percent. A career is like a relationship, so make sure you’re putting as much effort into trying to fix the problems as you put into feeling bad about them.
6. Humility goes a long way. Nothing infuriates your boss (and co-workers) more than employees who feel they deserve something they haven’t earned. I’m a firm believer that raises are for the work you’ve done, and promotions are for the work you can do.
7. Individuality is to be respected—as long as you’re still part of the team. Sometimes, there is an “I” in team. It just has to be the right kind of “I”—distinctive yet collaborative, unexpected but on strategy. Don’t be afraid to stand out, but do make sure you don’t alienate your teammates in the process.
8. Always try to add something smart to the discussion. Ask a smart question or make a great point that no one else has thought of. But do your homework so you can back up your comments and aren’t asking things that you should already know the answer to.
9. Sometimes you have to shout to be heard. You’ve heard the phrase “Squeaky wheel gets the grease”? Well, take note: Occasionally, persistent voices are listened to. Don’t be afraid to speak up when you’re passionate about something.
10. Have a perspective on the past, present and future. It’s not enough to do well today. Your boss wants and needs to see that you have a broader outlook on where you/the client/the work/etc. has been, is now and will be going.
11. Always be that ray of light in your boss’s/co-worker’s day. This one’s simple. Surprise. Delight. Be the kind if individual you’d like to spend 200-plus days each year with. And to be clear—that’s much different from kissing ass.
Making decisions is at the heart of what managers do.
That’s why one of the big things that gets all-too-many managers into trouble is NOT making a decision when one is desperately needed, as so many Yahoo workers discovered during the disastrous reign of CEO Jerry Yang. Yang was a terribly indecisive general who fiddled around and failed to make the kind of basic management decisions that the troops needed to help move the company ahead.
But this gets to another management truism: You gotta have a strong heart, supreme confidence and some pretty big balls (as they say on the TV show Wipeout) to make your decisions in public, where everybody and their brother gets to second-guess the call.
“Just when you thought the 2009 postseason umpiring couldn’t get any worse,” says a Yahoo Sports blogger named Duk (and so much for transparency in the media cesspool known as the blogosphere), “Tim McClelland goes ahead and makes what ends up as the worst call—or non-call—of all time. Yes, you read that right. The worst call of all time. Not just this postseason. Not this entire season. Not this decade. Not this century. I challenge you to think of one that was worse.”
Blogger Duk goes on to eviscerate umpire McClelland for the better part of 15 paragraphs. And as a sports fan who gets tired of the histrionics of arrogant, overpaid referees (Who goes to a game to watch them preen and overwhelm the action on the field?), I believe McClelland, the crew chief of this group of umpires, deserved it.
However, this made me wonder: How would you manage if every decision you made was televised to millions of people and analyzed endlessly by an army of pundits?
This is what paralyzes the Jerry Yangs of the world. It’s the inability to make a tough decision, or sometimes, any decision at all. Yet decision-making is one of the core functions of a leader and critical if the goal is to get the maximum out of the workforce.
“Decisions … are not made well by acclimation,” said the late, great management guru Peter Drucker, although Drucker also said that you needed healthy disagreement to really make sound decisions in the end.
I don’t think Drucker had Major League Baseball umpires in mind when he wrote that, but he’s right. The best decisions aren’t made by a committee, but rather, by a smart and insightful manager who takes in all the relevant data before ultimately making the call.
Still, most managers don’t make that call on national television for all to see. It’s why making big decisions in the public eye isn’t for the faint of heart, and it’s why major-league umpires like Tim McClelland gets paid as well as they do. It’s a thankless job on a public stage, and how many managers would want to submit to that?
That’s why I welcome Bartz’s challenge to a longstanding management task that long ago seemed to outlive its usefulness—the annual performance review.
“If I had my way I wouldn’t do annual reviews,” she told The New York Times, “[especially] if I felt that everybody would be more honest about positive and negative feedback along the way. I think the annual review process is so antiquated. I almost would rather ask each employee to tell us if they’ve had a meaningful conversation with their manager this quarter. Yes or no. And if they say no, they ought to have one. I don’t even need to know what it is. But if you viewed it as meaningful, then that’s all that counts.”
I’m with Bartz on this one. I am not a fan of the annual review process, mainly because of the focus on the “process.” The discussion with the employee isn’t the problem, but rather, what you must go through to get to that stage—the inflexible forms, the manual process and the lack of a good follow-up system that makes the evaluation truly meaningful.
I might feel differently if I had access to some slick software that automates the process—and I’m told by my HR vice president that it is coming in 2010—but in the meantime, it’s more about the process than it is about the communication with the worker.
The solution that Carol Bartz suggests—an ongoing process of discussion, review and coaching with the employee—makes a lot of sense but also takes a lot of time. That’s in short supply for a lot of managers as they cope with the effects of the Big, Bad Recession, but I think that Bartz has the right idea.
A just-in-time system for regular employee feedback might go a long way toward helping keep workers engaged as we all struggle with an economic environment that makes it tough to keep workers’ heads in the game.
“People should understand that they will learn more from a bad manager than a good manager,” she told the Times. “They tend to get into a cycle where they’re so frustrated that they aren’t paying attention actually to what’s happening to them. When you have a good manager things go so well that you don’t even know why it’s going well because it just feels fine. When you have a bad manager you have to look at what’s irritating you and say: ‘Would I do that? Would I make those choices? Would I talk to me that way? How would I do this?’ When people come to me and say, ‘I can’t work for so-and-so anymore,’ I say, ‘Well, what have you learned from so-and-so?’ People want to take a bad situation and say, ‘Oh, it’s bad.’ No, no. You have to deal with what you’re dealt.”
That’s the trick in life, isn’t it—“to deal with what you’re dealt.” Those are words of wisdom that all managers need to live by, in good times and in bad, because they are the very essence of what it takes to be a successful and effective manager.
= Member Only
