How (Un)ethical Are You as a Manager?

Most managers think they are ethical. But the truth is most of us are not. 

We would like to think we are objective:
> We obviously choose the best candidate for the organization’s benefit based on fair assessment and drawing rational conclusions.
> We only assign “high potential” status to those who are certainly high potential – and use historical data to drive decisions.
> We proactively offer mentorship to all team members, and are careful to be fair with our time… 

But the truth is, we harbor far too many unconscious (and unethical) biases that not only cause faulty decision-making but undermine our work as managers. 

Biases are not harmless, they are harmful. Our biases prevent us from recognizing high-performing workers, contribute to turnover, decrease the amount of trust within a team, and stop us from collaborating effectively. And these effects all contribute to lower performance.

You may now be thinking, “Hmm, when am I unethical as a manager?” (that is my hope, anyway!). Self-reflection is the first step in re-training our brains, and altering our unconscious bias. The great news is you are not powerless. In fact you can take deliberate actions to counteract the forceful pull of unconscious bias. 

• Regularly audit your decisions (this is also known as controlled processing). Why are you making the decisions you are? Why do your candidate pools look the way they do? Who gets the most talk time on the team? Who receives the most stretch projects? 

• Expand beyond your comfort zone. Actively look for environments that differ from your own and that challenge your biases. Attend an array of ERG events for exposure, or spend time in varying departments to observe the different mores within a workgroup that is not your own.

• Actively seek to change policy. Equity is not a trend, but it has emerged in the spotlight within corporate America. How can you influence hiring practices at your company? How do you ensure onboarding is equitable for your team and beyond?  

In my Fostering Inclusion in the Workplace workshop, we dive into the specifics of just how to create accountabilities to ensure behavioral change. Contact me to learn more about how this workshop can help you and your team, and in the meantime, I challenge you to practice the above steps.

Why Investing in Managers is an Active Equality Effort

Image by Charles Forerunner, Unsplash

In my recent research, I found that women were conclusively more affected than men during COVID-19, a predicament that continues to prevail and evolve, but a close second on the scale of most affected were parents (male and female) as a consequence of managerial frameworks or lack thereof.

Managers and broader corporations as a whole who refused to recognize the complexities of COVID-19, and the associated detrimental factors, compounded the problems for parents specifically. In many cases, organizations made it so difficult for employees to co-exist in their new reality of balancing the care for children with careers, that one parent was forced out of their jobs: mothers. This should not come as a shock based on the knowledge that over two million women are or have considered taking a leave of absence or leaving the workforce entirely due to the COVID-19 crisis, but it should be shocking.

The reason for this forced departure is “simply” based on the fact that what we think about care and who is responsible for it is faulty. This is where the concept of Default to Responsibility comes in and is a newfound necessity for organizations to understand. 

While the research shows that some corporations directed their managers to be flexible, they did not define what flexibility was or how to achieve it. Further, it was found in a Riveter study that only six percent recorded their employer changing benefits to help parents during the pandemic. Six percent! An absence of empathy paired with clear expectations for managers to follow created a climate filled with tension, mistrust, and lower productivity. Innovation flattened, stress increased, and now corporations face the costly reality of replacing the women they lost. For each woman who departed, organizations can expect to pay six to nine months of the individual’s salary to replace her. 

Managers must receive adequate education and preparation for how to be steadfast amidst uncertain environments. Inclusive climates require effort, knowledge, observation, and consistent discourse. Without the constant efforts of improving climate -- a very feasible and reasonable process for managers to achieve -- it will unravel at the seams as pressures supersede values. An unsustainable approach and one that ensures inequality.

THOUGHT STARTERS:

If you are a manager --
Consider value-based leading. What is one of your core values? Why is it relevant to your leadership?

If you are a governor of a corporation -- 
What resources are you giving to your managers to create inclusive climates that spark higher engagement, minimal turnover, and superior problem-solving?

First posted on LinkedIn.

The Stay Interview

The stay interview, like the exit interview, is not a new practice. Business leaders are slow to implement the former which I argue is counterintuitive. Exit interviews offer institutions, government agencies, and firms alike insight into why employees leave and what organizational changes may prevent a like-caliber employee from moving on in the future. But, let us face it, the exit interview can only offer the potential to corrective action if the person receiving the exit interview information can actually use it – or better yet – make a useful change with the feedback.

An exit interview, while still valid for gathering knowledge, is more about cleaning up the pieces. It is also all too often emotionally fueled due to the upsetness (some) managers face by losing an employee. Conversely, the stay interview approach is about preparation. If a valued employee gleans perspicacity into a glaring problem, a manager has an opportunity. This opportunity is particularly unique because the awareness gained can be used to motivate and retain the "stay interviewee." Rather than a broad stroke, a manager has the chance to make slight adjustments for each team member, ensuring continued discretionary effort and fueling manager-subordinate discourse rooted in trust.

 To my earlier point, the individual receiving feedback from the employee needs to have either influence or a path to an individual who can influence - even if small - change. An unfortunate practice, one particularly common with exit interviews, is when senior leadership never even bothers to review the responses — what a missed learning moment. From recurring themes to insights about the type of employee that is less successful at the organization, the data offers a wealth of information.

Let us assume you are new to this but think the idea of engagement and retention sounds appealing. How do you get started?

Preface the stay interview conversation with the worth the employee offers the organization. Next, candidly share the importance of understanding their experience at ABC company, and that the following questions are to understand what is meaningful to them, and to learn what areas need development.

• What do you like most about working here?

• What do you like least about working here?

• Is there something you look forward to when you come to work each day?

• What keeps you here?

• If there is something you could change about your job, what would that be?

• What motivates you?

• What can I do better as a manager?

• What talents are not being used in your current role?

• What might tempt you to leave?

Do not forget to recap what you heard. Provide a real-time occasion for the employee to clarify or refine statements. Listening is an essential skill, after-all! Does your team member have a lot of sentiments about what needs to be changed? Set the expectation that change doesn’t happen overnight and be sure to communicate openly about what you have or do not have control over and what actions you will be seeking. A conversation without action (even if mostly positive) diminishes the value of a stay interview.

This article was first published via LinkedIn Articles

Recruitment & Leadership Pairing: An Approach for Employee Retention

I recently conversed with the owners of Exploration People, Melinda Williams and Jennifer Gould. Their expertise in placing talent within the eCommerce vertical enabled our paths to cross quite naturally. Upon reflection of our conversation and the undeniable necessity of strong talent acquisition, it got me thinking: How do recruitment professionals and leadership consultants work together to help companies create an ideal workforce?

Management consulting and recruitment specialists are mutually exclusive; yet, we are in the business of people. These functions are more closely linked than what first meets the eye.

Both work streams are responsible for technical capability; where I am responsible in assessing leadership theory appropriately and using my rolodex of knowledge to prescribe the issue and, with it, implement programming to improve situations, recruiters are responsible for thoroughly understanding the scope of the position as well as the mechanical skill-sets the candidate must possess. Just as the technical components are essential, so too are the relationships that are built along the way. The ability to understand people – truly comprehend motivations, limitations, potential, and possible blind spots – is really where our work comes in.  As I said, we are in the business of people.

We sat down to discuss. I wanted to learn why candidates – from the lens of recruiters who have dedicated time to proper vetting – stay with companies. The results are unsurprising, and business owners will be served well to take note.

Value

Value is identified as one of the three components that must be taken into account for a retention strategy. Jennifer and Melinda are frequently asked by candidates how the companies for which they are interviewing value their people.

Value comes in different forms – from salary to other rewards, and of course, recognition. While wage needs to be commensurate with industry standards, I have found it’s often not about the salary alone. It’s about the culture within the company.

Take this example: person one (1) works for company ABC and earns 20% more than another person, person two (2), who works for DEF. Person 1 is never thanked, seldom recognized, and morale is low. Person 2, while earning less, is regularly recognized by their boss for a job well-done, is trusted to accomplish the work, and is appreciated for who they are and how they contribute to the company. Unsurprisingly, they are more motivated to come into work, and the 20% difference in pay is a moot point.

Companies need to be able to answer these questions in the interview process:

1. How is change handled and communicated?

2. What is the corporate culture? Not the marketing words associated with mission and vision, but what are the actual values of the people within?

3. What type of recognition and rewards can be expected?

Growth

In my climate assessments, a key piece of feedback received is about upward mobility. What is the path to further achievement and what potential is there for growth? Without these discussions being held regularly, professional paths are ambiguous. This leaves employees feeling bored or “stuck” and limits longevity.

Companies may have grand plans for an employee, but if they aren’t discussed, documented, and action-oriented, the employee may leave never knowing there was the positive intent.

Regular reviews must be a part of the business framework; not only to discuss performance but to discuss potential and professional development. Further, feedback doesn’t always need to be scheduled. Encourage managers to speak with team members about aspirations and performance regularly. This allows corrections to be more fluid and enables plans for the future to be actualized, not just discussed.

Autonomy and Flexibility
In saving the best for last, Melinda and Jennifer find independence and flexibility to be the most common theme that is discussed with candidates. A common mistake that managers make is to keep their grip too tight. Instead of empowering employees, they think their control will produce better results. (This micromanagement can, and should, be undone!)

A common fear that candidates possess is whether or not they will be trusted to do their jobs. This goes back to the cultural framework as well as the coaching and self-awareness that is needed for managers.  If the person is a top performer but is never allowed to work from home, and this is something that adds value to their life, employees will feel mistrusted, and this leads to an absence in motivation. Giving a good employee space and flexibility to do what they were hired to do speaks volumes.

A Strategic Combination
The recruiter’s new reality? A desire to place candidates in workplaces where cultures are encouraging, dynamic, and free of toxicity. To me, these means the necessity to invest in organizational development, and personal development has never been higher. The interconnectivity between recruiters and leadership consultants, too, is an apparent fit. How I support people within organizations to become the best versions of themselves contributes to the overarching retention strategy. If we can correct fundamental issues, such as the aforementioned top three, candidates will be eager to evolve with their company. The people companies seek, and Melinda and Jennifer look diligently to uncover, will be a very worthwhile investment.

As such, the power-packed approach of engaging the right talent – Melinda and Jennifer’s part – and enabling candidates’ success through organizational change and development – my part – is undoubtedly well-aligned.