Showing posts with label Business. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Business. Show all posts

Dr. Jekyll and Mr/Ms Hide




 WIKIPEDIA ::.....
Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde is a novella by the Scottish author Robert Louis Stevenson first published in 1886. The work is commonly known today as The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. HydeDr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, or simply Jekyll & Hyde.[1] It is about a London lawyer named Gabriel John Utterson who investigates strange occurrences between his old friend, Dr. Henry Jekyll,[2][3] and the evil Edward Hyde. The novella's impact is such that it has become a part of the language, with the very phrase "Jekyll and Hyde" coming to mean a person who is vastly different in moral character from one situation to the next.[4][5]

A strange world straight from a  1886 novella

Many organizations host split characters disguised behind title and empowerment .  On the one hand, you can have a manager or leader who presents themselves well for executives, leadership or bosses (Dr. Jekyll) while being quite the nightmare when they are dealing with employees (Mr or Ms Hide). 

That's where the play on words for this title comes from.  There are people in organizations who are genuine, friendly and personable in front of their leadership and bosses, then quite the nightmare for the employees they supervise.  They "hide" their meanness and vindictive behavior.  

When an employee goes off the rails, Dr. Jekyll readily labels the employee as a "troublemaker".  The company takes the trusted Mr. Hide's word.

As always, my writing reflects various topics on business and leadership, without revealing the source, as a means of communicating real problems that exist in companies.

Whistle blower or trouble maker?
Most organizations have protected themselves from publicity or public scrutiny by activating measures that are designed to allow employees the freedom to express concern without fear of ramifications.  What happens when their manager, Mr. Hide, labels them as a trouble maker? Is that label open for examination or accepted as truth?

Some organizations set out policies and processes to allow employees to express concerns about their managers under various feedback forums and surveys.  It is not surprising that it is a fear injected process or a tattle tale curriculum.  

It seems to always work out in the movies that Mr. Hide is easily identified by the audience without much effort.  Hollywood likes to show how whistle blowers are often discriminated against or labelled negatively in order to protect Mr. Hide's mistakes and not held accountable to making slanderous career-limiting identifiable labels.  

So is a whistle blower really a trouble maker?
How about an employee who follows the companies process only to fall victim of being labeled a trouble maker.

What happens, and it does, when a whistle blowing culture evolves into tattle tales that are lodged as a complaint to disguise a bullying environment or clique that discriminates against their colleagues, who was hired and held up to scrutiny in the same fashion.  

Only in Hollywood is the offensive tattle tale  exposed as a means to discredit someone else as a means to avoid being discovered to have the wrong behavior.   If someone is doing something that is wrong ethically, why is it that their best defense is to go on the offensive?  




Whistle blow or tattle tale?
A whistle blow is not held in the same characterization as a tattle tale.  Yet, the most sophisticated, well-intentioned organizations can fall into this trap.  They have a hard time distinguishing between the two:  whistle blow or tattle tale.

How accountable are organizations in finding managers or leaders who are quick to judge or label employees?  Where does the benefit of the doubt come into the equation?  Who finds fault with guilt until proven innocent allowed?

Often, whistle blowers become us versus them.  The more controversial the claim, the more likely a whistle blower is labelled as a trouble maker.  Even Hollywood loves such a plot:  the underdog versus Goliath.  

Why even bother expressing concerns of unprofessional conduct of a manager when one knows that they will only be labelled as a trouble maker, easily expendable?

Why not examine the differences between a tattle tale and a whistle blow?  If it is easy for Hollywood and Televisionland to identify the culprit in the story as someone who accuses someone else of doing something wrong in order to protect themselves from being found out, why can't companies?

Seems like an easy plot, easily identified with, but rarely considered in the real world.

I get that a complaint lodged has to be examined and considered without bias.   So why do companies allow the manager who is not trained in mediation to be the one to taint an employee's reputation or damage their record?

If a manager knows that an employee has a reasonable concern, why would they go on the offensive instead?  We understand that drama in the workplace is disruptive and toxic.  Yet so is bias from managers.

We must consider that the drama that unfolds can be more likely because someone is protecting their own reputation and in so doing, tries to destroy the reputation of another.

The situation at hand was where an employee considered a workplace romance distracting and toxic to their work environment.  As proof, they decided to take a picture of the cozy duo to bring forward to discuss with the manager.

What exploded was the offenders not only discriminating against the observer, rallying together and calling the battle cry with others to  lodge a formal complaint against an individual.  That individual could have just denied taking a picture because nobody had seen a picture, just the act of taking a picture.  Why wouldn't drawing in a crowd to the incident, harming someone's reputation, placing them as the subject of gossip be considered just as harmful to a positive work environment?

Meanwhile, the offenders are allowed to go into Tattle Tale mode::.... if one reports an incident and makes it sound very disruptive, it is easy for the company to label who the trouble maker is.  Right?  Well, unfortunately, in real instances, the trouble maker should be considered as the parties who lodged the complaint to remove their own unprofessional conduct and transplant it onto someone else.

Wag the dog
Is a descriptive used in themes whereby in order to avoid a controversy, the person(s) at the center of a potential controversy creates drama or an explosive claim or action in order to avoid fielding anything negative or drawing attention to their own poor behavior.

Companies fall into this trap for many reasons.  One could hypothesize or guess that at its core would be legal disasters or damaging reputation being paramount.  In the two instances I am familiar with, confidential sources private, the person or persons lodging the complaint were immediately defended and protected.  The subject of the complaint was not.  Companies don't always have a means to protect the subject of a complaint.  They may not even defend the subject or examine whether the complaint was a proactive defensive offensive move.

It isn't surprising when the person in this situation decides they have nothing more to lose, because they have already been labeled and motions are made to make it uncomfortable for the employee, pushing them to leave the company.  Case dismissed.  Problem solved?

Hardly.  Companies can be their own worst enemy.  They allow skewed perceptions by untrained managers to mediate, defending them-selves and the tattle tale, allowing anyone to be labeled a trouble maker.  Behind closed doors.  Conversed openly with other managers, a nail in the coffin on employable opportunities within the company that would otherwise allow an employee who could prove greater value if they were to move elsewhere within the organization to flourish and contribute more.  Never mind if it were to be leaked while an outside job search is considered.

The employee told me that a central manager displayed a white board outside their work area "are you comfortable with being uncomfortable?"  That seems to communicate the strategy of making life so unbearable for perceived trouble makers that they have little choice but to look for employment elsewhere.  The company loses.  They have gone through the expense to hire, train and coach such employee, increasing in cost when they've been there for a couple of years.  That is a drain on finances and strains resources by stretching other employees to make up for the gap.  It also may take a while to fill in the position, along with expense to bring the next person up to the same level of knowledge and training as the employee that was forced to be so uncomfortable they decided to leave.

In the scenario that was confided to me, the manager's boss, must have seen that whiteboard that displayed those words.  I am writing this blog because I have faith in most leadership.  Such a display of tactical efforts to rid the company by the manager's labeled undesirables or trouble makers would shock others as much as it did me.   It makes it easy to see the tactical culture where one is squeezed to leave, because it is right there out front and centrally displayed and communicated.  Being an optimist by nature, I would think that leadership would be shocked but such display and discipline to the manager's scribe instigated, demanding it be removed.  Unfortunately, if other leaders have been in the area and not done anything about it, it could suggest they endorse the strategy.

While unemployment is higher than average, it shouldn't mean that employers allow managers to take a vice grip style on managing employees.  Ready to scoop up anyone they decide is harder to manage than most, and tactically allowed to pressure employees to leave.  Not easily identified.  Except in this instance by its exact words, the displayed quote on a whiteboard can indicate that it is a philosophy shared not only by the manager, but by the manager's leadership.  Including the boss and the boss' boss, if circulating among staff is a company directive.  

Then again, any employee could observe such an aggressive stance on managing employees out the door.  If they were to take a picture of toxic, discriminatory behavior, they can fall prey to being labeled undesirable, a formal complaint initiated.  That person's career within that company doomed.

What bothered my confidential subject the most was that they were considered guilty long before any investigation was launched.  If they had asked anyone's advice beforehand, they would have been told "deny, deny, deny".  So why not lie in this instance?  Just say that they did not take any such picture for evidence of the cliquey, toxic workplace.

Instead, the employee didn't lie.  They were honest and apologetic, agreeing that their approach was not necessarily the right approach.  However, they did say that they did reach out to the offenders, with proof shown to the investigators, that they did try to resolve the offensive behavior privately between the employees.  Instead, the tattle tale culture prevailed and allowed the victim to become the defendant.  Sound wrong?  

It sounds to me that good intentions can become misaligned when people are caught doing something wrong and then are allowed to disrupt the work environment by making claims that move the spotlight from themselves to another party.  The assumption of guilt can be misplaced when a complaint is launched.  How many companies actually examine whether the complainant(s) are more disruptive and toxic than the party to which they are trying to shift the blame to?

That is what it appears to me anyhow.  What do you think?  Worth considering by companies who have created a tattle tale culture under the guise of allowing coachable feedback to be the norm.

I guess that is usually when the media or Hollywood intervene.  It becomes great plots where the underdog goes up against the great Goliath, the company.   The truth eventually prevails and the underdog becomes triumphant when their reputation is restored and the wrongdoers are identified as the party(s) who launched the complaint in order to disguise their own misbehavior.  

If cheating on spouses among employees, whether real or imagined, is an area companies don't want to pursue, that is fine.  It is not my place to decide.  I just write about it.  However, creating a work atmosphere that allows such antics, a company is allowing toxic behavior to continue that can offend and impact other employees' values, beliefs and trust that the company will protect them against eroding cultural acceptance.

I'm optimistic enough that many leaders of company's would react the same way I did: of the opinion that some managers don't promote employee well being.

Or, taking a chapter from the parenting I had: a  tattle tale is often disciplined more than shifting to the person they are trying to blame.  Then again, parents know and recognize such a tactic.




Some cultural environments are not always in sync with promoting employee well being, even if their public-facing literature says so because it can be undermined by their managers' habits. 

Another example: allowing managers to reach out to communicate by email,  text or phone calls when employees are on official vacation.  That probably isn't a culture of well being underscored.  Instead alarm bells on such practice would be a good start for companies to consider.  Are they allowed to call a reported sick employee and justified by the belief that the employee may be dishonest?  One would think the screening process would be strong enough to identify potential recruits who fake illness to avoid going into work.  It demonstrates mistrust by a manager who is suppose to be an advocate and supporter of the employees that report to them.

My blog and writing is separate from any personal employment and past employers experiences, unless noted.  It is my personal opinion and avoids incriminating any specific corporate philosophy or employer,  past employer or company.  I write to create conversations that potentially change how leadership and business act.  I have not, up to this point, received any monetary endorsement, reward or income from writing this blog.  I honor the privacy of the individual(s) who trust me enough to share their stories and will protect their identity to avoid disciplinary actions taken against them and their reputation.
















The interview police: how are you treating those being interviewed?


"It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you'll do things differently." ~Warren Buffet
There are so many great websites, blogs, articles, books out there that capture the interest of job hunters or career seekers. You are given advice on your resume, your attitude and how to behave at the interview.
Yet while there are so many of these sites that offer candidates advice, where are the interview police? Well, I guess between Google searches, Linked In and other sources, one can easily find out a lot about a prospective employer. Distaste can be quick and immediate if one has a poor interview experience. That being that the interview was unprofessional, disrespectful and disengaged.
"If you take care of your employees they will take care of your customers and your business will take care of itself." ~ J. W. Marriott
How many companies assess what they are doing within their hiring practices and how they may be treating prospective employees. That is likely a major oversight that will only be rectified when the job market switches positions: from a buyers market perspective of employee recruiting to a sellers market from those seeking employment.
What are organizations doing to ensure that they are living values when presenting themselves to the outside world in favorable light? Of course, we get that advertising is a customization geared by marketing that can be skewed to give the impression that they have their act together.
However, what if the person representing your company is interviewing a prospective employee to join your company .... do you have metrics to track their record: hiring success as in placing people within the organization that become key producers and are promoted quickly? How many are let go within 3 months or quit within the first year or two: a drain on resources and finances.
I worked for an organization where the Code of Conduct was weak. There was a key manager who began an affair with a sales guy who had just had a baby, while his then-wife was suffering from postpartum depression which I can only imagine grew immensely upon discovering her husband cheating on her with a manager. 
No, they weren't direct reports. Yet one was a manager while the other was not, receiving direct benefit from the relationships by increased and highly leveraged sales opportunities. You sense a conflict of interest? 
There is the saying my grandmother often used: "cut off your nose to spite your face"..... that same manager had some other issues, the turnover under that area was constant. Bleeding the company dry as far as resources by constantly back filling positions, placing enormous pressure on the hard workers who remained. Taxing them so much that they end up leaving and then the organization was stuck with mediocre personnel or really disgruntled employees. 
The manager was a long serving member of the organization's management team. Attractive, with a witty sense of humor when the boss was around. A knife handy and ever-ready to stab others in the back when not. Surprised at the turn over?
The question was never asked: why is it that one manager can hire people who become key contributors while another has constant turnover? 
Another easy way would be to sit in on an interview with that manager. How are they communicating the key values of the organization? Are they sitting across from the applicant with a stapled questionnaire, mechanical and impersonal? Easily forgetting that the interviewer is representing the company. What impression are they giving?
I heard about a week or so ago that the joblessness is going to start improving in 2017. Interesting. I'm not sure if it will be as robust as it was around our town 10 years ago: where referral bonuses were common and finding any employee was a challenge, never mind a great one. 
"Train people well enough so they can leave. Treat them well enough so they don't want to." ~Richard Branson
Employees are the biggest advertisers of a company's brand: what do yours say about your company? Take it a step further, how do you treat your employees? Internal feedback doesn't seem to get much reaction because co-managers have each other's backs. Is a disruptive employee a trouble maker or a change maker? That can be defined by the strength of the leadership in the channel of command. 
Clean up seems to always be in the employee area.  Numbers save money. How can turnover not? It also seems counterproductive if you have someone who is interviewing, hiring people that are just recycled and spit out.  If companies think it is easy to search a candidate's background on ethical and behavioral attitudes, it should be obvious these days that so it is to search a company. It is increasingly readily available for employees to check out employers. There are sites that allow employees to grade their company, its executives, its management, reflect on how they treat their personnel, how well do they communicate or do they offer opportunities for advancement? There is always an area for comments. 
Comments and feedback are not solely isolated to past employees. It is open and public facing. Candidates are able to communicate on how they were made to feel during the interview process. How professional was it? How welcome were they made to feel? 
Some interviews are like inquisitions. Where the interviewee feels that they are being trapped or pushed to trip up. 
Ah the power of the interviewer .... can you take being made to feel minor, unimportant? IF you can, then you may just be able to fit in this company.
Other interviewers deem it their job to give feedback on the candidates resume, how it is laid out, ease to read. Like a foreshadowing that as an employee, you will have to have a strong armor and self-confidence against all the "constructive" feedback that could be demeaning or demotivating.
Yet GREAT interviewers do find valuable hires. Those new stars also make the hiring person look good. How do companies reward that? I haven't heard much of those types of metrics. Why not?
On smartphones: those tools of efficiency can be swords of disrespect
You may have someone in an important position facing the public.  Is the interviewer friendly, professional, using manners? Or do they give the impression that it is an unnecessary evil because they've already made up their minds to hire buddy from around the corner or something like that? How many people who have gone for interviews where the interviewer is rudely, unapologetically late or jumping up in the middle to take a call or respond to an email or text message? On smartphones: those tools of efficiency can be swords of disrespect::... that may depend on your culture.
Don't let your company fall into the deep trap of the pit of disreputable hiring practices. Ensure that whomever is in a position of hiring is also promoting your company. How professional, or lack of professionalism, can negatively impact your brand.
When the jobless market improves and career seekers fall back into the driver's seat, are you making it easier for your company or harder? 
That's where my grandmother's saying comes in: are your team members cutting off their nose to spite their face? Are they ruining the opportunity for your organization to attract valuable candidates?
Try not to wait until the job market does reverse itself. Try not to be one of those organizations who have to pay for referrals because your behavior, or the behavior of those interviewing others is sub par. 
"It doesn't make sense to hire smart people and then tell them what to do; we hire smart people so they can tell us what to do." ~Steve Jobbs
Don't get caught up in not making good on promises or not recognizing those that are making you look good. 
Case in point: a 27 year old young man who works for a major corporations, been with them for 9 years, adored by clients and is still only paid $12.25 per hour.  Is that organization delusional by thinking that it won't catch up with them eventually? 
How you treat prospective employees in your hiring practice may be an indication on how they will be treated as an employee. That can discourage the top performers and high achievers from even considering your company, withdraw from applying.
Instead of employee feedback, performance review forms and hiring questionnaires, why not have an anonymous interview feedback to candidates within only a few hours of an interview, that is unrelated to being hired or job offer a check box to take into account?
An interviewer's behavior should be identical whether they are having a one-on-one meeting with the CEO of your company or interviewing a prospective employee. It should be interchangeable and seamless, indistinguishable from one to the other. Its importance significant and treated the same.
Respect and manners at minimum should reflect appreciation for the candidates' time, nerves and preparedness. It would communicate the same values with which they would be treated as an employee. Seriously and important.
"You can't build a reputation on what you are going to do." ~Henry Ford
Your company's reputation can fluctuate by shareholders value or perceived value. How it treats its employees or candidates should be important enough to consider.

A schemer and a dreamer; living in the land of me, me, ME

Monday October 24 2016

A net magazine
As I peruse and surf the stratosphere, I ponder and mull the idea of creating an online magazine.  I come across some pretty splendid ones.  This is not a unique idea or a new one.

If you don't know by now, you haven't been reading my blog much, or maybe not at all.  Fair enough.  You're here now.  That's what matters in the scheme of things.



You could call me a schemer and a dreamer.  I like to see what is out there and ready to unfold.  While working hard and pressing for self-improvement with focus on being a mindful practitioner.  

Experience
I've created a magazine.  I've launched one.  I've had it printed and distributed.  I've worked with ad agencies, ad agents, national, global affiliations with writers and freelancers around the world.  

Well that was let's say about 15 or so years ago.  But man, I loved it.  I was like my own world of Oprah.  Living in the land of me, me, ME.  

Purpose
The search for cause and purpose gives me more energy than that someone of "my age" would normally allow.  Energy is not something that I've been accused of lacking.  In fact, it is when I seem quieter and relaxed, my familiar over reacts, thinking I may be becoming lethargic.  

Worry by loved ones is never a bad thing.  May everyone always have someone who cares that much for them, as you.  Unique as you are.

I will continue to blog in various genres to test the aptitude of my writing and attitude of anyone taking the time to read.  When one is ten times more than zero.  

I appreciate having you along on my various experiments.  One that is evolving almost by accident currently:  using Google's blogspot blogging platform to see if it makes a difference since they are driving search results.  

I have a blog on Word Press and the crowd seemed very cozy and supportive.  Not that that has driven any great volume to that blog.  There are a few that do.  But it is still a crowd of cheerleaders who will promote each other by popularity, politics and the normal high school power struggles.

Say it and share it

So, I've written it down.

I've shared it.

Now it is time to do it.

NOW

Not tomorrow.

TODAY

Not later.

EXCEPT

Not this minute.

Being mindful does not mean one has to fast forward from task to task, never taking the time to savor it.  Enjoy it.  There is only one of it.

That sounds like a poem:  I'll have to admit, searching, reading and sharing poetry with a purpose on The Publisher has expanded my horizon on poetry.  I tested myself to see if I could read poetry.  Not something that I have done.  Give it a try.  I think you will enjoy how it appeals to the senses as much as I.

Yes, I, I, I.

To create a magazine:  I will be the Publisher 
(check, blog started)

To produce a creative theme:  I will have to assemble a cast of talent                                                        (started)

To have words written that people enjoy:  I will continue to observe the best I can discover.          (started)

To earn income that encourages growth and improvement:   I will have to persevere, be dedicated with a strong commitment and disciplined effort.                                                                                      (get started)





CHECK OUT my selection
 of Halloween Poetry:         


https://publishcanada.blogspot.ca/2016/10/caldrons-bubble-lots-of-trouble.html


NOTE (meaning)

Shaka sign


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, see Shaka (disambiguation).
The "shaka" sign is a common greeting in the Hawaiian culture, subsequently also used in surfer culture.
The shaka sign, sometimes known as "hang loose", is a gesture of friendly intent often associated with Hawaii and surf culture. It consists of extending the thumb and smallest finger while holding the three middle fingers curled, and gesturing in salutation while presenting the front or back of the hand; the hand may be rotated back and forth for emphasis. The shaka sign was adopted from local Hawaiian culture and customs by visiting surfers in the 1960s, and its use has spread around the world.

Meaning and use[edit]

Hawaiians use the shaka to convey the "Aloha Spirit", a concept of friendship, understanding, compassion, and solidarity among the various ethnic cultures that reside in Hawaii, lacking a direct semantic to literal translation. The shaka can also be used to express "howzit?", "thanks, eh?", and "all right!" Drivers will often use it on the road to communicate distant greetings and gratitude.
In American Sign Language, the shaka is one of the two signs used to refer to surfing.[citation needed] In California, the shaka sign may be referred to as "hang loose" or "hang ten"—both associated with surfer culture.[1]