5 ms·

I am, by accident, a small part of a "culture transformation" at a large, well established corporation. The group doing this has the same intention (to improve

I am, by accident, a small part of a "culture transformation" at a large, well established corporation. The group doing this has the same intention (to improve the employee's experience), but I have observed this is consistently at odds with the leadership's desire to keep employees at arm's length, and maintain the strategic control over employees. For example, you can't be nice to employees and then lay them off at the same time- such an act instantly violates trust, therefore leaders say they want things to be better for employees but are often not willing to make the sacrifices necessary to follow through. So then you get stuck in a conundrum, and the leaders look and often act like hypocrites. Employees do that too. It's been an interesting time in this role, like I said, for me it was somewhat accidental and I can clearly see the arguments from both sides. Still working on it but, I'm not sure how you resolve some of these issues without the right attitude - that maybe we are not "leaders and employees", but that we are all "professional colleagues" - and then following through with the proper organizational supports and programs to help such an organization survive and operate, and still be able to compete.

Waterluvian 8y ago
"you can't be nice to employees and then lay them off at the same time" You absolutely can and you must. Being professional and being nice are not exclusive. Quite the opposite. A professional manager understands that being nice doesn't mean protecting someone from reality just because reality sucks. It means showing them respect during the process.
- sixdimensional 8y ago
  I quite agree with you. I think this is more the perception of the leadership I'm working with than my own opinion. However, convincing them of your point has been the difficult part. Their fear of undermining their position is high.
- conover 8y ago
  Completely agree. This reminds of the scene from Moneyball where trading players is discussed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTjhHrcyiQI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTjhHrcyiQI.
  - jaggederest 8y ago
    When I was consulting, I would cite this scene often, both referring to how I would prefer people to treat me, and how we should treat other independent contractors professionally.
    - hoaw 8y ago
      Contractors aren't employees though. Most employers wouldn't want to pay for expansive contractors for the bulk of their workforce nor does society really support that. The lesser and lesser rights of employees is a power grab. Employees still needs to pay high rents, expensive mortgages, bring up kids and everything else. If anything that has become harder to do successfully by working. I really don't think a lot of companies are going to come out favorably in hindsight if there is a downturn.
      - jaggederest 8y ago
        Absolutely agree. As an employee there's a whole different social contract, but I still think directness and forthrightness is the best way.
- throw2016 8y ago
  The word 'professional' itself is a way to distance yourself from your actions and consequences and works to dehumanize the people you work with. What does 'professional' mean'? Is it 'unprofessional' to deceive your employees and customers or users? Is abusing the privacy of your users professional? Is it unprofessional to layoff workers for short term gains? Its definition itself is contextual to power and what it defines at that time. Individual bad behavior is not unprofessional, its just bad behavior.
  - DataWorker 8y ago
    Agree mostly but it is nevertheless a useful term. What it means precisely is determined by culture. And culture is another problematic term, for roughly similar reasons.
  - akiselev 8y ago
    There is some well tread ground here, albeit not in the software world. The National Society of Professional Engineers, for example, has a (in my opinion) clear and detailed Code of Ethics [1]. The "Fundamental Canons" section is as good a description as I can think of for what it means to act professional as an engineer: Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public. Perform services only in areas of their competence. Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner. Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees. Avoid deceptive acts. Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and lawfully so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession. [1] https://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethics https://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethics
    - YZF 8y ago
      I thought we were talking about managers here. And that laying people off as a manager was somehow the "professional" thing to do. But let's interpret this in the context of the Professional Engineer ethics. Let's say there's a bad quarter. Is laying off people to make the results look a little better for the next quarter promoting the health, safety and welfare of the public? Is it honorable? Was the company clear about this policy in advance? If not is it a deceptive act? When companies issue statements about layoffs are those typically objective and truthful? Maybe we need a code of ethics for managers.
readhn 8y ago
"Still working on it but, I'm not sure how you resolve some of these issues ..." i can recommend two books that discuss exactly these issues and go even deeper: "The Servant: A Simple Story About the True Essence of Leadership " and "What drives people".
- sixdimensional 8y ago
  Thank you for the recommendations! I've read about servant leadership, and I think it's part of a broader awareness and awakening that we can be and do things differently than we did in the past. It certainly fits with how I prefer to act, whether a leader or not. I think where the leaders I'm working with are struggling is, many were groomed under a different system, and it has been a challenge for then to adapt to/believe in some of these new principles.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - k9s9 8y ago
    These things take time. Your job is to make sure they are constantly reminded an alternate path is available. Thats it really. It doesn't matter if the majority of them are struggling or rejecting things. All it takes is one of them to make a breakthrough. And then its like dominoes. Once upon a time, most leaders hardly ever visited a gym or bothered about their health. Today it's a rare thing to find one that doesn't. That didn't happen overnight. The key is for them to see other leaders having success with the approach.
e40 8y ago
you can't be nice to employees and then lay them off at the same time Absurd. I've done it. When the reason for the layoffs isn't to benefit some rich overlord (person or entity), then people can accept it, if you give them reasons to believe you'll be fixing the problems that led to the layoff. It requires communication.
robmiller 8y ago
For me, when I started working at a company in 2007 was hearing our CEO call us a 'family.' It didn't feel very family-like in 2010-2012 when the layoffs finally came. I stayed there a few more years and 'family' came back into the communications, but have since left. Language like that marks the top of a business cycle or bubble for me.
- Kinnard 8y ago
  Sounds like an ideal worth pursuing but that's hard to achieve in reality, "family" definitely seems like something worth pursuing over the course of the Infinite Game.
rgbrenner 8y ago
It sounds like you're fighting an uphill battle. Culture change needs to start at the top with the CEO or founder(s). They should be driving the entire initiative. In addition to lending legitimacy to it, they also lend authority to it... And since there are always those that will resist change (for various reasons: they don't agree, they don't see the value, they prefer the old way, etc), the initiative needs that authority to bring those people onboard or to treat them like any other antagonist on a team (move them or replace them). If you don't have that, then I would find a way to get off that team. That's a failed culture change, and is just waiting for management to change its mind and quite possibly, fire the entire team. If management wants employees to trust them, that should start with management. And they start that process by openly communicating and listening. On layoffs: Everyone in the company is an employee... the company makes money and issues paychecks. If the company doesn't make enough money to pay those who work there, there isn't some sacrifice that can be made. Either the company lays off those they cannot afford, or it closes it's doors permanently. Everyone understands this. They are all adults, and if you communicate openly about the health of the company, they will understand. And if you have a situation like that, and management communicated openly, then the employees will start to trust that when management says everything is going great, that it is actually true. Trust begins at the top too.
- badpun 8y ago
  > If the company doesn't make enough money to pay those who work there, there isn't some sacrifice that can be made. Either the company layoffs those they cannot afford, or it closes it's doors permanently. Everyone understands this. They are all adults, and if you communicate openly about the health of the company, they will understand. Aren't layoffs frequently about the owners just not making as much money as they would like, and not about survival?
  - rgbrenner 8y ago
    There is pressure from owners (shareholders/investors) to increase profits.. and that can be a problem for the company if they are not performing as well as other similar investment options, since investors will take their money elsewhere, making it harder to raise money in the future. But that's a pressure the company is under constantly. The executive team turns that into an action plan. The action plan always reflects the need to constantly make progress. In other words, it's never the case that greed is suddenly a reason for layoffs -- since that existed every day the company was operating. Companies aren't laying off divisions that perform well and contribute profits to the company. They layoff to solve an issue that has been identified. That issue needs to be communicated. The fact is, no company is a perfectly performing entity. There are always parts that perform inefficiently; no longer reflect the mission of the company; etc. And sometimes layoffs are required to improve the company.
mbostleman 8y ago
I would not trust a company that didn't have the good sense to lay me off when necessary.
toupeira 8y ago
Here are some resources on the topic of self-management, in case you're not familiar with them yet: - https://sociocracy30.org/ https://sociocracy30.org/ - http://www.reinventingorganizationswiki.com/ http://www.reinventingorganizationswiki.com/ - https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/ https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/

Waterluvian 8y ago

"you can't be nice to employees and then lay them off at the same time" You absolutely can and you must. Being professional and being nice are not exclusive. Quite the opposite. A professional manager understands that being nice doesn't mean protecting someone from reality just because reality sucks. It means showing them respect during the process.

sixdimensional 8y ago
I quite agree with you. I think this is more the perception of the leadership I'm working with than my own opinion. However, convincing them of your point has been the difficult part. Their fear of undermining their position is high.
conover 8y ago
Completely agree. This reminds of the scene from Moneyball where trading players is discussed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTjhHrcyiQI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTjhHrcyiQI.
- jaggederest 8y ago
  When I was consulting, I would cite this scene often, both referring to how I would prefer people to treat me, and how we should treat other independent contractors professionally.
  - hoaw 8y ago
    Contractors aren't employees though. Most employers wouldn't want to pay for expansive contractors for the bulk of their workforce nor does society really support that. The lesser and lesser rights of employees is a power grab. Employees still needs to pay high rents, expensive mortgages, bring up kids and everything else. If anything that has become harder to do successfully by working. I really don't think a lot of companies are going to come out favorably in hindsight if there is a downturn.
    - jaggederest 8y ago
      Absolutely agree. As an employee there's a whole different social contract, but I still think directness and forthrightness is the best way.
throw2016 8y ago
The word 'professional' itself is a way to distance yourself from your actions and consequences and works to dehumanize the people you work with. What does 'professional' mean'? Is it 'unprofessional' to deceive your employees and customers or users? Is abusing the privacy of your users professional? Is it unprofessional to layoff workers for short term gains? Its definition itself is contextual to power and what it defines at that time. Individual bad behavior is not unprofessional, its just bad behavior.
- DataWorker 8y ago
  Agree mostly but it is nevertheless a useful term. What it means precisely is determined by culture. And culture is another problematic term, for roughly similar reasons.
- akiselev 8y ago
  There is some well tread ground here, albeit not in the software world. The National Society of Professional Engineers, for example, has a (in my opinion) clear and detailed Code of Ethics [1]. The "Fundamental Canons" section is as good a description as I can think of for what it means to act professional as an engineer: Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public. Perform services only in areas of their competence. Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner. Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees. Avoid deceptive acts. Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and lawfully so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession. [1] https://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethics https://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethics
  - YZF 8y ago
    I thought we were talking about managers here. And that laying people off as a manager was somehow the "professional" thing to do. But let's interpret this in the context of the Professional Engineer ethics. Let's say there's a bad quarter. Is laying off people to make the results look a little better for the next quarter promoting the health, safety and welfare of the public? Is it honorable? Was the company clear about this policy in advance? If not is it a deceptive act? When companies issue statements about layoffs are those typically objective and truthful? Maybe we need a code of ethics for managers.

readhn 8y ago

"Still working on it but, I'm not sure how you resolve some of these issues ..." i can recommend two books that discuss exactly these issues and go even deeper: "The Servant: A Simple Story About the True Essence of Leadership " and "What drives people".

sixdimensional 8y ago
Thank you for the recommendations! I've read about servant leadership, and I think it's part of a broader awareness and awakening that we can be and do things differently than we did in the past. It certainly fits with how I prefer to act, whether a leader or not. I think where the leaders I'm working with are struggling is, many were groomed under a different system, and it has been a challenge for then to adapt to/believe in some of these new principles.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- k9s9 8y ago
  These things take time. Your job is to make sure they are constantly reminded an alternate path is available. Thats it really. It doesn't matter if the majority of them are struggling or rejecting things. All it takes is one of them to make a breakthrough. And then its like dominoes. Once upon a time, most leaders hardly ever visited a gym or bothered about their health. Today it's a rare thing to find one that doesn't. That didn't happen overnight. The key is for them to see other leaders having success with the approach.

e40 8y ago

you can't be nice to employees and then lay them off at the same time Absurd. I've done it. When the reason for the layoffs isn't to benefit some rich overlord (person or entity), then people can accept it, if you give them reasons to believe you'll be fixing the problems that led to the layoff. It requires communication.

robmiller 8y ago

For me, when I started working at a company in 2007 was hearing our CEO call us a 'family.' It didn't feel very family-like in 2010-2012 when the layoffs finally came. I stayed there a few more years and 'family' came back into the communications, but have since left. Language like that marks the top of a business cycle or bubble for me.

Kinnard 8y ago
Sounds like an ideal worth pursuing but that's hard to achieve in reality, "family" definitely seems like something worth pursuing over the course of the Infinite Game.

rgbrenner 8y ago

It sounds like you're fighting an uphill battle. Culture change needs to start at the top with the CEO or founder(s). They should be driving the entire initiative. In addition to lending legitimacy to it, they also lend authority to it... And since there are always those that will resist change (for various reasons: they don't agree, they don't see the value, they prefer the old way, etc), the initiative needs that authority to bring those people onboard or to treat them like any other antagonist on a team (move them or replace them). If you don't have that, then I would find a way to get off that team. That's a failed culture change, and is just waiting for management to change its mind and quite possibly, fire the entire team. If management wants employees to trust them, that should start with management. And they start that process by openly communicating and listening. On layoffs: Everyone in the company is an employee... the company makes money and issues paychecks. If the company doesn't make enough money to pay those who work there, there isn't some sacrifice that can be made. Either the company lays off those they cannot afford, or it closes it's doors permanently. Everyone understands this. They are all adults, and if you communicate openly about the health of the company, they will understand. And if you have a situation like that, and management communicated openly, then the employees will start to trust that when management says everything is going great, that it is actually true. Trust begins at the top too.

badpun 8y ago
> If the company doesn't make enough money to pay those who work there, there isn't some sacrifice that can be made. Either the company layoffs those they cannot afford, or it closes it's doors permanently. Everyone understands this. They are all adults, and if you communicate openly about the health of the company, they will understand. Aren't layoffs frequently about the owners just not making as much money as they would like, and not about survival?
- rgbrenner 8y ago
  There is pressure from owners (shareholders/investors) to increase profits.. and that can be a problem for the company if they are not performing as well as other similar investment options, since investors will take their money elsewhere, making it harder to raise money in the future. But that's a pressure the company is under constantly. The executive team turns that into an action plan. The action plan always reflects the need to constantly make progress. In other words, it's never the case that greed is suddenly a reason for layoffs -- since that existed every day the company was operating. Companies aren't laying off divisions that perform well and contribute profits to the company. They layoff to solve an issue that has been identified. That issue needs to be communicated. The fact is, no company is a perfectly performing entity. There are always parts that perform inefficiently; no longer reflect the mission of the company; etc. And sometimes layoffs are required to improve the company.

mbostleman 8y ago

I would not trust a company that didn't have the good sense to lay me off when necessary.

toupeira 8y ago

Here are some resources on the topic of self-management, in case you're not familiar with them yet: - https://sociocracy30.org/ https://sociocracy30.org/ - http://www.reinventingorganizationswiki.com/ http://www.reinventingorganizationswiki.com/ - https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/ https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/