Combating Office Politics

In overly political companies, individuals who are usually seen as problem-solvers are often marginalized if their initiatives negatively reflect on the "corporate order." It's a high-risk proposition, but it's up to HR leaders to take the lead in combating corporate politics.

In companies that are obsessed with politics and intrigue, individuals seen as problem solvers can rarely fix issues. In fact, problem-solvers are more likely to spawn new problems that weigh heavily on the organization's ability to serve customers and respond to market trends.

This is because most problem-solvers in such organizations avoid thinking about the political dimension of problems. For them, problem solving is apolitical and necessitates issues to be understood and analyzed, root causes identified and validated, and initiatives developed and implemented so that workable solutions eventually result.

Those solutions -- by and large -- are delivered in the form of processes and governance models, roles and responsibilities, training, automation, etc. Problem solving in this manner always conforms to the politics of the company or what I like to call the "corporate order."

No matter how hard problem-solvers try to fix problems, the corporate order always ensures that facets of the solution that they deem threatening to their interests are either lobbied away or sufficiently diluted before the green light is given for implementation.

Even the implementation of the solution is not secure from the prying eyes and ears of the corporate order. If they discover red flags that can expose their incompetence or heap embarrassment upon them, project and operational reports are skillfully manipulated to steer initiatives into paralysis or the initiative is given a death blow.

In such environments problem-fixers -- executives, program directors, project managers, line managers, etc. -- quickly learn to mold their thinking to accommodate the interests of the corporate order, even if it is detrimental to the corporate interests.

Subsequently, problem-fixers spend huge amounts of intellectual capital, invest considerable budgets and exert much effort in producing and delivering solutions that are fundamentally flawed both in scope and application.

From the outset, the purpose of such solutions is to maintain the status quo, i.e., to keep the executives that preside over the corporate order in power. Problem-fixers are only permitted to solve those problems that enable the custodians of the corporate order to meet their performance targets and maintain good relations with the board.

Problem-solvers who adhere to the purity of their thinking and are sincere to the corporate interests find it extremely difficult to conceal their frustrations in such working environments. They often clash with the interests of the corporate order -- many do so with a poor understanding of the political situation.

In the end -- depending upon the level of seniority and political influence -- they are either browbeaten into submission, contained but isolated, or their employment is terminated. This usually happens after a lengthy war of attrition -- often disguised in business jargon, so that unaware employees do not become suspicious and can be used as pawns in the ensuing power play -- and the company's resources, money and time are wasted in such pursuits.

Those problem-fixers who survive the onslaught are intellectually scarred and find it difficult to even attempt to solve future problems. They procrastinate, fearful that their solutions will be rejected by other employees who work under the shadow of the corporate order.

Such problem-fixers very quickly lose credibility and relegate themselves to problems they cannot solve.

If problem-solvers truly want to solve problems in politically charged companies, then they must seek the assistance of HR executives to take the lead in countering the corporate order. However, HR executives must go beyond the traditional techniques and models available to them before they engage in such an endeavor. To do so, they must excel in three areas.

First, develop a firm understanding of the corporate order and its political influence on the entire company.

Second, learn to think politically and not intellectually.

Unlike intellectual thinking, political thinking has no rules. Its source is the statements and deeds of those who engage in politics as work. Techniques such as generalization, modeling and analogies rarely work to uncover or counter the motives and plans of the corporate order.

Conversely, the corporate order is apt at exploiting such techniques to imprison those who challenge them in their thinking, thereby rendering them impotent.

Hence, it is incumbent upon HR executives to build a profound understanding of all the major players at work, their domains of influence and how they maneuver politically to safeguard their interests. In sum, HR executives, in close collaboration with problem-solvers, need to possess a crystal-clear picture about the political plans and actions of those who maintain the corporate order.

Third, for HR executives to be successful, they must have the courage to challenge the existing corporate order on behalf of the problem-solvers.

Challenge here should not be confused with mere confrontation with the guardians of the corporate order that ultimately yields a compromise -- this will never lead to proper change.

At best, the problem-solver's concerns will be accommodated by the corporate order, but at the mercy of their terms and conditions. Moreover, the problem-solver will be regarded by other employees as a lapdog of those executives under whose control the corporate order thrives.

To produce effective change, HR executives, together with problem-solvers, must expand the support base to include other executives willing to spearhead the cause, and then challenge the corporate order until it is reformed or reconstructed.

This is a high-risk strategy -- failure will certainly be a career-ending move for the problem-solver or even the HR executive championing the cause, but success will usher in an era of genuine problem-solving, propel the company to new heights and cement the position of the HR executive as an indispensable leader.

The Manager's Role in Performance

When managers consistently build one-on-one dialogues with employees, there are often measurable improvements in productivity, quality and personnel dynamics. Yet most leaders, managers and supervisors fail to regularly provide the guidance and direction necessary to support a real performance management process. They don't clarify performance expectations or offer candid feedback on an ongoing basis. As a result, these managers fail to consistently assist project and resource planning, track performance, correct failure and reward success.

To strengthen the day-to-day working relationships between managers and their direct reports, the Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine (HJF) conducted extensive training. The centerpiece of the approach was to get managers at all levels into the habit of conducting one-on-one conversations with their direct reports every day, every week or every other week to spell out performance expectations and review previously set performance expectations, building regular one-on-one performance dialogues into the corporate culture.

"In many cases, the level of regular engagement between managers and their direct reports increased dramatically, and the impact on performance was evident," said Debbie-Jo Zarnick, HJF's director of human resources. "In those cases, we could see error rates decreasing and productivity increasing as a direct result of the regular one-on-one performance dialogues."

Accounting firm Clifton Gunderson LLP (CG) introduced regular one-on-one performance dialogues between partners and senior managers and the associates they manage. At CG, the approach was dubbed HOT - hands-on and transaction - but the approach was similar to that used at HJF. Through training and internal communications strategies, talent managers promoted building more highly engaged supervisory relationships using consistent, structured, one-on-one performance dialogues.

Lauren Malensek, CG's chief human resource officer, has written extensively about the program's success and its impact on profitability and retention. Malensek said the firm's partners became increasingly committed to the approach "because they have seen what it can do for their business results."

The more one-on-ones a manager conducts, the stronger and more informed the manager's judgments will be about what can be done and what cannot, what resources are necessary, what problems may occur, what expectations are reasonable, what goals and deadlines are sufficiently ambitious, and what counts as success versus failure.

These conversations are opportunities to ensure there are no obstacles in the employee's way.

This is also the manager's chance to answer questions, solicit input on additional development needs, provide support and get firsthand information about the employee's experience on the front line.

It is time-consuming for managers to conduct regular, one-on-one performance conversations with direct reports, but it can be far more time-consuming and costly when managers fail to conduct them. Unnecessary problems occur more often, and small problems are more likely to grow more complex. Meanwhile, managers end up doing tasks that could be delegated.

Once a manager gets into a routine of one-on-ones with each employee, conversations don't need to be lengthy. The best practice is to keep them brief and simple. Talk through each employee's work of the day or week in sufficient detail to provide feedback, guidance, support and course correction.

Often 15 or 20 minutes per conversation is all a manager needs. It's a moving target. Over time, managers become more adept at gauging how much time to spend with each employee.

Frustrated managers can copy what the most effective managers do every day:

Step 1:
Get in the habit of holding regular daily or weekly one-on-one meetings with each direct report. Try to spend an hour a day conducting one-on-ones.

Step 2:
In these one-on-ones, practice talking like a coach or a teacher.

Step 3:
Build each unique dialogue with each person based on what's needed to be successful in the role, and what that person needs to improve his or her performance.

Step 4:
Make accountability a process by getting people in the habit of giving regular ongoing accounts of their performance in these one-on-ones.

Step 5:
Spell out expectations in detail every step of the way.

Step 6:
Track performance in writing every step of the way.

Step 7:
Solve small problems before they turn into big problems.

Step 8:
Do more for some people and less for others based on what they need.

To Develop Is to Retain

To Develop Is to Retain

Now that the effects from the deepest recession in 70 years are receding, employers are slowly adding new employees. The problem is they also may be losing some of their best and brightest.

Avoiding turnover completely is unlikely, as it may not be easy to enhance salary or benefits. But chief learning officers can mitigate the exodus by promoting development strategies to retain the workers they can least afford to lose.

According to the U.S. Department of Labor there were 3 million job openings on the last business day of April, a slight decrease from 3.1 million in March. Yet high unemployment rates linger, and many organizations remain cautious about hiring. That hasn't hampered job seekers, however. In a press release detailing why managing talent will be even tougher in 2011, Douglas Matthews, president and chief operating officer for Right Management, a talent management company, said more than 80 percent of workers may now be actively seeking new jobs.

The Cost if They Leave

For many employers a little turnover isn't necessarily bad news. Some executives reason that voluntary turnover is unavoidable and may serve to clear out low performers. That may be true, but the real cost should not be underestimated. Losing talented employees is a bottom-line issue. Considering replacement expenses such as covering each vacant position, plus the cost to recruit, hire, train and orient replacement workers, turnover can cost an organization 50 to 150 percent of an employee's annual salary. "The immediate costs of losing talented employees is significant and can be quantified relatively accurately," said Lisa B. Peters, chief human resources officer of BNY Mellon. "The long-term costs are more difficult to calculate, and they can have serious consequences. The impact of losing top talent at any place in the leadership pipeline may not be felt for years, but such losses truly limit an organization's ability to fill critical roles and, ultimately, compromise a company's competitive position."

The Mechanics of a Development/Retention Strategy

There are several steps learning leaders can take alone and in concert with their HR peers to ensure their organizations retain top performers.

1. Identify the keepers.

To retain talent, figure out which employees are the keepers. All workplaces are composed of top, middle and bottom performers. But cream rises to the top, and organizations can identify that top 10 to 15 percent of the workforce through performance review data and learning management reports. It also pays for CLOs to keep an eye on emerging talent and to create diverse learning activities such as job shadowing and rotation, stretch learning assignments with an internal mentor, and customer or site visits to bolster development of top performers at all levels. Further, don't keep that information secret. It is important to let top employees know they are valued and that the organization supports their development. The goal is to motivate and encourage them.

2. Establish development programs for each level.Leadership development programs - whether internal or external - should target learning needs for all front-line supervisors, middle management and senior-level executives. Robust development plans should include competencies required for each level of development, as well as blended learning programs, on-the-job stretch assignments and sponsorship, and mentoring by senior executives. While building a comprehensive leadership development program is necessary to maintain bench strength, it's also critical to retain the best and brightest. For example, a manager may progress through various management courses at different levels to gain skills for delegating, managing a function and leading an enterprise. Coursework may include foundational e-learning programs, individual and 360 assessments to target developmental goals at each level, workshops to practice skills and peer coaching to reinforce them.

3. Partner with HR to determine the employee engagement baseline.Widespread employee engagement problems can adversely affect even the best performers. CLOs should evaluate if their workplace culture actually fosters employee engagement. One way to find out is to partner with human resources to conduct and analyze results from an organization-wide employee engagement survey. These surveys can identify the degree to which employees connect with, or are fully involved in and enthusiastic about their work, as well as gauge their commitment to the organization and its goals. This also can help identify the value of learning and development for retention as well as target areas where learning may be necessary to bolster skill development.

4. Find ways to stretch employees developmentally.All employees have to deal with some mundane aspects in their work. The danger, particularly with high-performing workers, is that drudgery can take over and demotivate or demoralize. To reduce that risk and take advantage of employees' unique skills, create special projects and temporary assignments for top performers. Beyond alleviating the boredom, these stretch assignments offer a chance for talented employees to acquire new skills and make significant contributions. It's also an opportunity to see how top employees may perform at the next level. For example, a lower-level employee may be assigned an acting or interim role to support a top performer as he/she executes a stretch assignment.

5. Incorporate learning into an organization's employment brand.An organization's employment brand is a key factor in attracting and retaining talented job candidates. The brand is a combination of current employees' feelings about working in the company combined with how potential employees perceive that organization in the marketplace. According to the 2011 Fortune 100 Best Companies to Work For list, the employment brand is a clear, competitive advantage in the labor market. Prospective employees evaluate an organization's brand in light of its recruiting strategies, on-boarding programs, tuition reimbursement and career development opportunities.

Companies that value, promote and market learning should advertise development opportunities and career progression ladders on their websites. New hires should receive an assessment work-up to help them identify strengths, opportunities and development goals. Tie assessments directly to the competencies and success factors high-performers possess. New hires also should be oriented to the details of the organization's learning process - one that carries its own brand name - and the development process they will follow as they progress in their careers.

6. Uncover the organization's vulnerabilities through keeper interviews.These should include questions about engagement and development opportunities such as:

a) What could be changed to make this a better place to work?

b) What keeps you here?

c) What's going well for you?

d) What makes you excited about coming to work here?

e) What would you like to learn or do next?

7. Keep in touch with the keepers.Every organization loses valued employees it would rather retain. However, goodbye doesn't have to be forever. Former keepers can be a valuable resource beyond the exit interview with the help of an alumni network. Thanks to Facebook and LinkedIn, former employees now have a way to stay connected with each other.