CaribHRForum

The term “Workplace Civility” came up at one of our subsidiaries operational meetings and it sparked my interest.

We may argue that humans have evolved or progressed but from a conceptual perspective it seems we have come full circle in a kind of pseudo-progression. The insurance company Geico says “even a cave man could do it” in some of their advertisements, but we may be underestimating the caveman and overestimating the civil man.

The civil man may look the part but when you see the careless driving on the nation’s roads, the disrespect among our people, one really questions if we as a people have really progressed. We drive on the shoulder, we resist queuing, and we extend no courtesies if when paid to do so as Customer Service representatives. On the rare occasion, one receives exemplary service or care. We at Guardian are working on transitioning the rarity of a pleasant customer care experience to be the norm.

Workplace incivility refers to rude, hurtful and disrespectful behaviour. The vicious circle starts with a perception of inequity, unfairness which breeds negative feelings; this may fuel some desire for reciprocation and may manifest itself in uncivil behaviour. If we return to an eye for an eye, we will all be blind.

In the workplace, there are several contributors to workplace incivility. When one combines all the work factors of long hours, workplace stress, change in employment status, job insecurity, demanding bosses, “short” temperaments, intolerance of diversity, financial problems, with social and domestic challenges, traffic, rising cost of living, etc, people may be driven to act out. We recall years ago the term “Going Postal” where a post office worker in the Edmond, Oklahoma killed fourteen co-workers and then killed himself. When the incident was investigated, they found that he believed he was about to lose his job, he had work-related stress with a smaller workforce and decreased wages all contributed to the violence.

Your organization may not experience incidents as drastic as quoted above, but the subtler instances affect productivity, increased turnover, decreased teamwork, work avoidance, decreased motivation, increased health-care due to stress and or psychosomatic disorders, legal costs due to litigation and an impact to customer retention and growth.

Humans communicate and interact with each other based on their individual needs (conscious or unconscious), be it for power, approval, validation, inclusion, justice, acceptance, to mask insecurities etc. These needs colour our communication. If we review the underlying causes of conflict (let’s call it the conflict iceberg) since what everyone sees is the issue that is above water. We don’t see all the personality characteristics, the emotions, the interests, needs, desires, self perceptions and self esteem issues, hidden expectations and or unresolved issues from the past. We need to ask key questions that will help us see below the surface and if these answers are forthcoming they should enhance our understanding.

When communicating, it is important to be aware of one’s tone, voice volume, be open minded, try not to interrupt, remember pleasantries, say what you mean respectfully and don’t argue for arguing sake. One should address conflicts in private, be aware of one’s own defensiveness, practice active listening and avoid making accusations rather ask questions first. Sometimes, it is even possible that you can be wrong, imagine that?.

We should have healthy boundaries, avoid escalation and vent if necessary to cool off. Bullies are everywhere, in schools, and at work. The organization must deal with bullying swiftly. We must not let people take advantage of our good nature.

In conclusion, we should not be keeping score or waiting for someone to be nice first. We should consider letting things slide that may not be intentional.  According to Mahatma Gandhi, “Be the Change You want to see in the World”.

Denise Ali
 Email This Post

Job evaluation is about weighing the general importance or relative worth of jobs in comparison to other jobs in an organization.

There are four basic job evaluation methods: Whole Job Ranking, Job Classification, Point Method and the Factor Comparison method. At Guardian, we have adopted the Hay Job Evaluation method which is based on a combination of the point and factor comparison methods. It is based on input (knowledge/know-how), throughput (problem solving) and output (accountability).

Our job evaluation committee comprises employees from a variety of functional areas across the organization. This makes for hearty dialogue and on some rare occasions it may even be entertaining considering that job evaluation is not the most exciting task. I thought I would share some experiences on common misconceptions on the topic.

More often than not, our committee receives job content questionnaires completed with the incumbent in mind, and it is often tailored to suit the incumbent.

Job evaluation focuses on the job not on people. The job evaluation does not determine the worth of the incumbent doing the job.

We also think if someone is doing more work, their job needs to re-evaluated.  When they are just doing more of the same type or level of work, a re-evaluation is not the answer. Maybe the department needs to review the processes, streamline, improve efficiencies, or increase manpower.

Job evaluation does not produce pay rates.  It may be a contributing factor to the process of determining pay grades, but it does not directly determine pay. Job evaluation determines the relative worth of jobs, which are then plotted to create job grades. We go to the market for compensation data on the benchmarked jobs. We decide on our pay philosophy which must be aligned to our business and then this informs our pay bands linked to our job grades.

Job evaluation does not account for scarcity of labour or skills, since demand and supply of labour shifts with the tide. Y2K was a great time for IT professionals.  Our oil boom days were great times for Geologists.

These professionals earned top dollar when compared to the earning potential for other professionals in jobs with similar hay points. As soon as the demand for a skill is satisfied with the supply, any excess supply starts diluting the earning potential. A job ideally should not be evaluated on the high end to overcome supply and demand pay challenges in the labour market.

We should not conduct job evaluations to justify the status quo, never start an evaluation, thinking we know the result before we start. We should not concentrate on the reporting relationship. For example, the executive assistant to the CEO may have the same hay points as the executive assistant to the VP of marketing, not because one may report to the CEO makes the job more important.

Another common error is evaluating the tools of the job. Secretaries in the past used typewriters, now they use computers, is the job worth more or less now?  I know, for example, that typewriters have no spell check function.

The Hay methodology is intended to benchmark jobs internationally using the same criteria; however it is the application of this methodology that poses challenges when it is fraught with some common blunders as discussed above.  What have been your experiences?

Denise Ali
 Email This Post

As we develop and grow as a civilized society, one would think our humanity and respect for humanity would also progress. When we review all the positives and negatives, the net effect (according to media reports) may lead one to believe that there is a lot of efforts being exerted to serve our ego and greed, resulting in high crime rates and a general lack of respect for life.

In our work life, we have also managed to replicate this general social disposition where trust is being eroded and in its place tons and tons of documentation stored on hard-copy or in high priced data centers.

For trust to be evident in our organizations, we should have some commonly held ethical beliefs, mutual shared obligations, goals and objectives with internalized values and norms. How often do we hear words like “I can rely on Tom”, I can depend on Mary”? Reliability and dependability are the results of trust. How often do you hear, “Send me an email first”?  Our personal experiences with our colleagues help build our relationships and these increases our sense of trust. What does our trust assessment show when we test our own organizations?

Trust building is an intangible concept that does result in tangible outcomes. A significant amount of activity is undertaken by groups rather than individuals. Growth and wealth creation comes from diverse groups of people working together, sharing resources and developing the capacity to create the kind of associations they mutually desire. The ability of people to work together for a mutual benefit with a high quality of social interaction and trust is a business asset.

In high-trust work communities, because actions and expectations are based on shared common values and principles, the cost of doing business is lower. We would not need a long paper trail, and would not delay actions waiting for written sign off because a verbal indication is not good enough.

In the July-August 2009 Harvard Business Review, Beinhocker, Davis and Mendonca in an article entitled “The 10 trends you have to watch” noted that loss of trust for a individual company “leads to higher transaction costs, lower brand value and greater difficulty in attracting, retaining and managing talent”. At the extreme end, it means “boycotts, negative publicity and unwanted regulation”.

In our own backyard, the Trinidad Guardian reported on the 13th May 2009 that CLICO (Colonial Life Insurance Company) received one billion dollars out of an expected total of five billion from the Trinidad and Tobago Central Bank to meet its financial commitments on maturing products. I suppose this may at least qualify as a concern to the trust relationship between CLICO and its policy holders and this may even spill over to the rest of the insurance industry.

Compliance and regulations move to the spot light in cases where the state must spend money to set up and run complex rules-based systems to monitor these organizations. There may be an inverse relationship with internalization of norms and values and the need for rules. The less we hold common norms and values, the more we need rules to govern us.

Trust has been absent without leave for some time now and the current economic situation does not seem to signal its return at least not in the near future. I am seeing more documentation, more rules, more archived email folders and more time is being spent on covering one’s derriere.

What happened?

Denise Ali
 Email This Post