Originally published 1/20/08
Have you ever been the victim of an abusive boss? A recent survey by the Employment Law Alliance found that nearly 45% of us have had (or have seen) a boss that engages in cruel behavior aimed at their subordinates.
The survey defined abusive behavior in a way that captures a wide variety of actions including criticizing an employee in front of co-workers, spreading rumors, and inappropriate physical contact.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize the negative effects of abusive behavior in the workplace. But, scientists have indeed studied the consequences of abusive supervision.
As you would expect, subordinates working for abusive bosses have lower job satisfaction, lower commitment to the organization, greater intent to leave the company, lower job performance, greater psychological distress, and more work-family conflict.
The most interesting part of the Employment Law Alliance survey, however, was the observation that abusive bosses were less common in the South and more common in the Northeast.
When we talk about cultural diversity in business management, we’re usually not talking about this kind of diversity. But I certainly think there are regional differences in how people interact with their co-workers that are worth understanding.
Having grown up in the South, surveys like this one make me proud; but they also remind me of the “other side” of Southern civility.
Several years ago, social scientists Dov Cohen and Richard Nisbett conducted a number of studies that also confirmed the general courtesy shown by people in the South. In a variety of different ways, however, they also found that Southerners were actually more abusive toward others when they had been insulted or challenged.
Cohen and Nisbett explain this through the “culture of honor.” They argue that Southerners are taught from an early age that violence against others is perfectly acceptable when one’s honor has been challenged.
I decided to conduct my own investigation of this phenomenon in a setting that I use for much of my research: professional baseball.
I wondered if major league pitchers born in the South were more likely to hit batters in situations that might be threatening to their identities.
Sure enough, pitchers from the South were not more likely, overall, to hit batters. But in a few situations, pitchers from the South were more likely to hit batters than were pitchers born in other regions of the US.
Pitchers from the South, for example, were more likely to hit batters after their own teammates had been hit by the opposing pitcher. If you’re from the South, you’re probably thinking that this is an admirable show of loyalty to one’s teammates.
Pitchers from the South were also more likely, however, to hit a batter immediately after giving up a homerun. They were also more likely to hit a homerun hitter the next time he came up to bat. This kind of retaliation isn’t quite as admirable.
So what’s the point? I think our lessons about cultural diversity in the workplace are missing an important aspect of culture. There’s enough evidence to suggest that people in the South (including your co-workers) are more sensitive to insults and challenges than are people in other parts of the country.
This means that abusive bosses are even more dangerous to your company in the South than they are anywhere else.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Are happy workers productive workers?
Originally published 1/06/08
I first became interested in human resource management while working at an underwear factory in South Carolina. Throughout my high school years, I spent my summers and vacations loading trucks with boxer shorts headed for Wal-Mart, K-Mart, Sears, Target and other stores around the country.
Most people wouldn’t describe this experience as fascinating, but I was intrigued by the fact that common sense was violated on a daily basis. Common sense, for example, tells us that happy workers are productive workers. Managers who believe this tend to think that they can squeeze more productivity out of people by making them happier.
At the underwear factory, however, the people who were the happiest were happy precisely because they could get away with being unproductive. The people I worked with in the warehouse were often absent and spent much of their time at work talking or sitting around listening to music.
The most productive employees, on the other hand, were usually the least satisfied. We worked harder because it made the time go by faster and we couldn’t wait to get away from that place.
Because of this experience, I’ve always questioned common sense approaches to management. In fourteen years of teaching, I don’t think I’ve ever told students that they could increase productivity by making people happy.
When I got to graduate school, I discovered that many people had studied the connection between job satisfaction and job performance. Most of those studies show a small positive relationship between the two. In other words, on average, satisfied people tend to be slightly more productive.
Most people interpret that to mean that an increase in satisfaction causes a (small) increase in performance.
It could also mean, however, that people who are more productive end up more satisfied. People who are more productive tend to receive more recognition, praise, bonuses, and the other kinds of things that might make someone more satisfied. If this is true, it really wouldn’t make much sense to try and directly increase satisfaction in order to increase productivity.
A recent study by Wright State Professor Nathan Bowling offered another explanation for the small relationship between satisfaction and performance. He found that the reason satisfaction and performance are related is because they are both caused by similar kinds of personality characteristics.
In other words, the personality traits that make someone a productive employee are the same traits that make someone view their job positively.
The most important implication of this finding is that employee productivity and satisfaction begin during the selection process. It’s highly unlikely that any company can take a person with low ability and a poor work ethic and turn them into a productive employee by making them happy.
The second implication of this study is that companies are not likely to make anyone more productive just by making them happy. Each semester I ask my students if they will work harder during the semester if I make them happy by promising them A’s no matter how much they learn. Even they are willing to admit it won’t work.
This doesn’t mean that job satisfaction isn’t important. Satisfied employees are more likely to remain with the organization and do other things that help the organization succeed. But if you’re hoping that a Christmas turkey will make your employees sew underwear faster, you’re barking up the wrong tree.
I first became interested in human resource management while working at an underwear factory in South Carolina. Throughout my high school years, I spent my summers and vacations loading trucks with boxer shorts headed for Wal-Mart, K-Mart, Sears, Target and other stores around the country.
Most people wouldn’t describe this experience as fascinating, but I was intrigued by the fact that common sense was violated on a daily basis. Common sense, for example, tells us that happy workers are productive workers. Managers who believe this tend to think that they can squeeze more productivity out of people by making them happier.
At the underwear factory, however, the people who were the happiest were happy precisely because they could get away with being unproductive. The people I worked with in the warehouse were often absent and spent much of their time at work talking or sitting around listening to music.
The most productive employees, on the other hand, were usually the least satisfied. We worked harder because it made the time go by faster and we couldn’t wait to get away from that place.
Because of this experience, I’ve always questioned common sense approaches to management. In fourteen years of teaching, I don’t think I’ve ever told students that they could increase productivity by making people happy.
When I got to graduate school, I discovered that many people had studied the connection between job satisfaction and job performance. Most of those studies show a small positive relationship between the two. In other words, on average, satisfied people tend to be slightly more productive.
Most people interpret that to mean that an increase in satisfaction causes a (small) increase in performance.
It could also mean, however, that people who are more productive end up more satisfied. People who are more productive tend to receive more recognition, praise, bonuses, and the other kinds of things that might make someone more satisfied. If this is true, it really wouldn’t make much sense to try and directly increase satisfaction in order to increase productivity.
A recent study by Wright State Professor Nathan Bowling offered another explanation for the small relationship between satisfaction and performance. He found that the reason satisfaction and performance are related is because they are both caused by similar kinds of personality characteristics.
In other words, the personality traits that make someone a productive employee are the same traits that make someone view their job positively.
The most important implication of this finding is that employee productivity and satisfaction begin during the selection process. It’s highly unlikely that any company can take a person with low ability and a poor work ethic and turn them into a productive employee by making them happy.
The second implication of this study is that companies are not likely to make anyone more productive just by making them happy. Each semester I ask my students if they will work harder during the semester if I make them happy by promising them A’s no matter how much they learn. Even they are willing to admit it won’t work.
This doesn’t mean that job satisfaction isn’t important. Satisfied employees are more likely to remain with the organization and do other things that help the organization succeed. But if you’re hoping that a Christmas turkey will make your employees sew underwear faster, you’re barking up the wrong tree.
Handling Layoffs
Originally published 12/23/07
The recent closing of Toot’s came as quite a surprise to employees and customers alike. But companies come and go. Toot’s isn’t the first restaurant that has closed down in Cookeville. And it won’t be the last.
The thing that shocked us, however, was the way in which employees found out that they had no jobs less than a month before Christmas.
Apparently, employees showed up to find new locks and a note that read: “We have done our best to provide an atmosphere of integrity and fun.”
The ex-employees who were interviewed by WTVF did not seem impressed.
But the purpose of this column is not to beat up on owners Rob and Tanya Holcomb. Instead the purpose is to show why other organizational leaders should handle things differently when faced with layoff or closure decisions.
When faced with a struggling business, many organizational leaders use layoffs to lower their labor costs hoping that this move will help the business survive.
So how well does this strategy work? Unfortunately, not very well.
In Responsible Restructuring, Professor Wayne Cascio explains that layoffs rarely result in positive financial turnarounds. Instead, the short-term savings are overwhelmed by the direct and indirect long-term costs of the layoffs.
Cascio’s book describes a number of companies that survived tough times because they decided not to use layoffs. One manufacturing company, for example, was ready to close one of its plants. Before going through with the closure, however, they decided to ask the employees for cost-saving ideas. Within six months the plant was one of the most profitable in the entire company.
This is a pretty good example of why companies hire people to start with; because they have brains and can think. Employees are less likely to help you come up with business-saving ideas if they’re locked out and being interviewed on television.
The networking giant Cisco Systems avoided layoffs by paying employees one third of their salary in exchange for working temporarily at a non-profit organization.
The possibilities are endless, but too many organizational leaders buy into the myth that layoffs will save a business.
But sometimes, layoffs are necessary. When layoffs are necessary, organizational leaders often believe another myth. They believe that nothing can be done to minimize people’s negative reactions.
Some amazing research shows that layoff victims, as well as layoff survivors, react much more positively to layoffs when they feel as if they are treated fairly during the process. Companies can drastically minimize negative reactions by carefully explaining the rationale for the layoffs and doing so in a sensitive face-to-face way.
But why should companies care if the layoff victims react positively or negatively to a layoff?
First, if business does improve, the company may want to rehire the ones who were laid off. Second, the layoff survivors, as well as the general public, react to the company according to how they treat the layoff victims. Finally, the layoff victims are much more likely to pursue legal action and favor government intervention if they believe they were treated unfairly during the process (even if they were treated legally).
There is one bright spot in all of this. In a free market, organizations with bad management will fail. The market appears to be working just fine on South Willow.
The recent closing of Toot’s came as quite a surprise to employees and customers alike. But companies come and go. Toot’s isn’t the first restaurant that has closed down in Cookeville. And it won’t be the last.
The thing that shocked us, however, was the way in which employees found out that they had no jobs less than a month before Christmas.
Apparently, employees showed up to find new locks and a note that read: “We have done our best to provide an atmosphere of integrity and fun.”
The ex-employees who were interviewed by WTVF did not seem impressed.
But the purpose of this column is not to beat up on owners Rob and Tanya Holcomb. Instead the purpose is to show why other organizational leaders should handle things differently when faced with layoff or closure decisions.
When faced with a struggling business, many organizational leaders use layoffs to lower their labor costs hoping that this move will help the business survive.
So how well does this strategy work? Unfortunately, not very well.
In Responsible Restructuring, Professor Wayne Cascio explains that layoffs rarely result in positive financial turnarounds. Instead, the short-term savings are overwhelmed by the direct and indirect long-term costs of the layoffs.
Cascio’s book describes a number of companies that survived tough times because they decided not to use layoffs. One manufacturing company, for example, was ready to close one of its plants. Before going through with the closure, however, they decided to ask the employees for cost-saving ideas. Within six months the plant was one of the most profitable in the entire company.
This is a pretty good example of why companies hire people to start with; because they have brains and can think. Employees are less likely to help you come up with business-saving ideas if they’re locked out and being interviewed on television.
The networking giant Cisco Systems avoided layoffs by paying employees one third of their salary in exchange for working temporarily at a non-profit organization.
The possibilities are endless, but too many organizational leaders buy into the myth that layoffs will save a business.
But sometimes, layoffs are necessary. When layoffs are necessary, organizational leaders often believe another myth. They believe that nothing can be done to minimize people’s negative reactions.
Some amazing research shows that layoff victims, as well as layoff survivors, react much more positively to layoffs when they feel as if they are treated fairly during the process. Companies can drastically minimize negative reactions by carefully explaining the rationale for the layoffs and doing so in a sensitive face-to-face way.
But why should companies care if the layoff victims react positively or negatively to a layoff?
First, if business does improve, the company may want to rehire the ones who were laid off. Second, the layoff survivors, as well as the general public, react to the company according to how they treat the layoff victims. Finally, the layoff victims are much more likely to pursue legal action and favor government intervention if they believe they were treated unfairly during the process (even if they were treated legally).
There is one bright spot in all of this. In a free market, organizations with bad management will fail. The market appears to be working just fine on South Willow.
Christmas Wishes
Originally published 12/2/07
The sounds of Christmas are in the air. At every toy commercial, my four-year old says “I want that for Christmas.” She probably won’t be getting everything. I hope she has the attitude of her brother when he was four. When my son opened his football tee, he said, with tears in his eyes, “I would have been happy with just this for Christmas.”
I’ve learned some other good lessons around Christmas as well. One year I received my first ten-speed bike. I went outside to give it a test drive and found that it didn’t change gears exactly like it was supposed to.
I went inside and pitched a fit to my dad, who had stayed up half the night putting it together. After getting very little sleep, dad wasn’t exactly in the mood to hear my complaining. That was the day I deserved a good spanking, but didn’t get one.
After reflecting on that episode for a while, I finally realized that parents aren’t required by law to buy their children anything for Christmas. Any gift I received meant that the family had less money for something else. Therefore, I should be grateful for anything I received.
This lesson of contentment has come in handy throughout life. Some employees think of their employers as their parents at Christmas. Some employees think they are entitled to annual raises, bonuses, health insurance, or other expensive “presents.” There’s no law, however, that requires employers to provide these things. That’s why I’m grateful for every raise I receive and every benefit I have.
In spite of my general contentment, there are still a few things on my wishlist. Here’s what I want the most.
I wish the Upper Cumberland economy depended more on people being creative and innovative and less on people being sick.
I wish there was a store in Cookeville that carried all of the merchandise that is on display, but not in stock, at all of the other stores in Cookeville.
I wish there were more service-oriented businesses in Cookeville that could accomplish something even when “the person that does that” is out to lunch or out of the office.
I wish restaurants would stop selling bacon by the slice. Bacon should come in big baskets, like rolls, with free refills.
I wish I had the money to buy a tract of land now before the county buys it all.
I wish Cookeville had a new movie theater. Sorry, that one’s been on the list for so long that I can’t get it off.
I wish Cookeville had a few more nail salons and payday loan establishments. Just kidding about that one.
I wish I had the 1933 Goudey Lou Gehrig baseball card ending tonight on eBay (just in case my wife actually reads this).
I wish fewer of my students would ask “Do I need to know that for the test?”
I wish more of my students would ask “Where can I find out more about that?”
Finally, I wish a merry and contented Christmas to everyone in the Upper Cumberland.
The sounds of Christmas are in the air. At every toy commercial, my four-year old says “I want that for Christmas.” She probably won’t be getting everything. I hope she has the attitude of her brother when he was four. When my son opened his football tee, he said, with tears in his eyes, “I would have been happy with just this for Christmas.”
I’ve learned some other good lessons around Christmas as well. One year I received my first ten-speed bike. I went outside to give it a test drive and found that it didn’t change gears exactly like it was supposed to.
I went inside and pitched a fit to my dad, who had stayed up half the night putting it together. After getting very little sleep, dad wasn’t exactly in the mood to hear my complaining. That was the day I deserved a good spanking, but didn’t get one.
After reflecting on that episode for a while, I finally realized that parents aren’t required by law to buy their children anything for Christmas. Any gift I received meant that the family had less money for something else. Therefore, I should be grateful for anything I received.
This lesson of contentment has come in handy throughout life. Some employees think of their employers as their parents at Christmas. Some employees think they are entitled to annual raises, bonuses, health insurance, or other expensive “presents.” There’s no law, however, that requires employers to provide these things. That’s why I’m grateful for every raise I receive and every benefit I have.
In spite of my general contentment, there are still a few things on my wishlist. Here’s what I want the most.
I wish the Upper Cumberland economy depended more on people being creative and innovative and less on people being sick.
I wish there was a store in Cookeville that carried all of the merchandise that is on display, but not in stock, at all of the other stores in Cookeville.
I wish there were more service-oriented businesses in Cookeville that could accomplish something even when “the person that does that” is out to lunch or out of the office.
I wish restaurants would stop selling bacon by the slice. Bacon should come in big baskets, like rolls, with free refills.
I wish I had the money to buy a tract of land now before the county buys it all.
I wish Cookeville had a new movie theater. Sorry, that one’s been on the list for so long that I can’t get it off.
I wish Cookeville had a few more nail salons and payday loan establishments. Just kidding about that one.
I wish I had the 1933 Goudey Lou Gehrig baseball card ending tonight on eBay (just in case my wife actually reads this).
I wish fewer of my students would ask “Do I need to know that for the test?”
I wish more of my students would ask “Where can I find out more about that?”
Finally, I wish a merry and contented Christmas to everyone in the Upper Cumberland.
Giving Thanks
Originally published 11/18/07
Are you thankful?
I have this funny feeling that we’re going to hear a lot this week about being thankful. I’m certainly thankful for many things. I’m thankful, of course, for my family and friends.
I’m also thankful that my wife and I both hate to shop. And I’m thankful that my kids have low expectations when it comes to Christmas gifts. I’ve convinced them that overloading Santa’s sleigh requires more fuel, which contributes to global warming.
But I’d like to ask business owners and organizational leaders if you’re thankful for the work done by your employees. If so, do they know it?
In 2004, the J.M. Smucker company was named by Fortune Magazine as the Best Company to Work For. Yes, J.M. Smucker is that glamorous high-tech company that makes jelly in Orrville, Ohio (population 9,000).
Founded in 1897, the company has expanded into a few more products and brands. In 2006, they sold over two billion dollars worth of jelly, peanut butter, and baking mixes.
So what makes J.M. Smucker a great place to work? They don’t offer pet insurance or free massages like Google. They don’t have artists on staff to personally decorate employee offices like SAS. Their employees don’t even get a fifteen percent discount at the TTU bookstore like I get (except for computer software and sale items).
J.M. Smucker wasn’t chosen as a great place to work because of their benefits. Instead, they were chosen because of the culture created by the founder’s great-grandsons and co-CEOs, Tim and Richard Smucker.
Before their father died, he wrote down four principles that he said should be used to lead the company. Thank others for a job well done. Look for the good in others. Listen with your full attention. And keep a sense of humor.
When Fortune surveyed Smucker employees, the feature that stood out the most was how often employees felt appreciated. Employees are thanked with gift cards, meals, holiday turkeys, and other small tokens.
The employees report that it’s not the value of the gift that matters. What matters is that someone noticed they were doing a good job and took time to recognize it.
In other words, being thankful for their employees landed J.M. Smucker at the top of the list of best companies to work for.
My columns are usually aimed at organizational leaders and I could probably stop here. But I also think it’s worth pointing out that employees have much to be thankful for as well.
As much as you may hate to admit it, your employer is your customer. They are buying your labor. There are over six billion people on the planet, but your employer decided to buy your services.
Most businesses are thankful for their customers and will bend over backwards to make them satisfied. Is that the way you think about your employer? Are you willing to go the extra mile to keep your customer happy?
I admit it’s a hard concept to grasp, but look at all of the companies choosing to shop for labor in other countries. I’m in the same boat. I teach courses that could easily be outsourced to professors in India or Mexico. But I’m thankful that my employer has decided to buy from me.
Whether you’re an employee or an employer, this week would be a good time to say “Thanks!”
Are you thankful?
I have this funny feeling that we’re going to hear a lot this week about being thankful. I’m certainly thankful for many things. I’m thankful, of course, for my family and friends.
I’m also thankful that my wife and I both hate to shop. And I’m thankful that my kids have low expectations when it comes to Christmas gifts. I’ve convinced them that overloading Santa’s sleigh requires more fuel, which contributes to global warming.
But I’d like to ask business owners and organizational leaders if you’re thankful for the work done by your employees. If so, do they know it?
In 2004, the J.M. Smucker company was named by Fortune Magazine as the Best Company to Work For. Yes, J.M. Smucker is that glamorous high-tech company that makes jelly in Orrville, Ohio (population 9,000).
Founded in 1897, the company has expanded into a few more products and brands. In 2006, they sold over two billion dollars worth of jelly, peanut butter, and baking mixes.
So what makes J.M. Smucker a great place to work? They don’t offer pet insurance or free massages like Google. They don’t have artists on staff to personally decorate employee offices like SAS. Their employees don’t even get a fifteen percent discount at the TTU bookstore like I get (except for computer software and sale items).
J.M. Smucker wasn’t chosen as a great place to work because of their benefits. Instead, they were chosen because of the culture created by the founder’s great-grandsons and co-CEOs, Tim and Richard Smucker.
Before their father died, he wrote down four principles that he said should be used to lead the company. Thank others for a job well done. Look for the good in others. Listen with your full attention. And keep a sense of humor.
When Fortune surveyed Smucker employees, the feature that stood out the most was how often employees felt appreciated. Employees are thanked with gift cards, meals, holiday turkeys, and other small tokens.
The employees report that it’s not the value of the gift that matters. What matters is that someone noticed they were doing a good job and took time to recognize it.
In other words, being thankful for their employees landed J.M. Smucker at the top of the list of best companies to work for.
My columns are usually aimed at organizational leaders and I could probably stop here. But I also think it’s worth pointing out that employees have much to be thankful for as well.
As much as you may hate to admit it, your employer is your customer. They are buying your labor. There are over six billion people on the planet, but your employer decided to buy your services.
Most businesses are thankful for their customers and will bend over backwards to make them satisfied. Is that the way you think about your employer? Are you willing to go the extra mile to keep your customer happy?
I admit it’s a hard concept to grasp, but look at all of the companies choosing to shop for labor in other countries. I’m in the same boat. I teach courses that could easily be outsourced to professors in India or Mexico. But I’m thankful that my employer has decided to buy from me.
Whether you’re an employee or an employer, this week would be a good time to say “Thanks!”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
