HOW TO CUT SICK DAYS IN HALF Absenteeism, Soviet Style.

Living the exciting life that I do, I’m buried in a book entitled “Why Nations Fail.” Columbus discovered the east coast of all the Americas at approximately the same time. The year may have been in 1492. Or it may be that 1492 rhymes well with “sailed across the ocean blue,” which seems a stronger case for choosing 1492. Why read this book? I had thought about the economic development differences between countries up and down the Americas, (eg., USA, Canada, the Caribbean, South America), all so different yet European influence began approximately at the same time in history. Unexpected, came a lesson in Soviet style attendance management. In 1940, during the height of Russia’s communism years, a whole set of laws was implemented, making it a criminal offense for workers to be seen shirking. Russia was trying to force productivity and national wealth. Low productivity, absenteeism from work was part of the problem. Absenteeism was defined as any twenty minutes of unauthorized absence, or idling on the job, and it became a criminal offense. The punishment? Six months hard labor and a 25% pay cut. Between 1940 and 1955, 36 million people, (about one third of the adult population), were found guilty. 15 million were sent to prison. 250,000 were shot. In one year, 2.5 million people were exiled to the gulag in Siberia. Still it didn’t work. Productivity, workplace participation, absenteeism, was at an all time low and Russia’s economic output kept dropping. My Columbus story had turned into a horror lesson in bad management. If you were considering legalism to counter high absenteeism in your organization, let it go. Listen to your HR manager. Even the threat of Siberia won’t reduce your sick days. Today we know that two thirds of all sick days taken, don’t include a sick person. Sick days have become “me days.” Extra holidays, time off. Is emotional engagement external or internal? Do you hire or manage for employee participation? The answer is, some of both.

1. Sick days are a snapshot of the work relationship. Supervisory culture matters.

2. Sense of meaning in the work itself. Feedback, I matter.

3. Work ethic and character matter. You can hire for increased participation and engagement. Look for a “sense of duty.”

Some people believe you have to provide them with job satisfaction, (and pizza). Others believe they have a sense of duty to your organization no matter what. Choose those with a huge sense of duty. Choose emotionally mature people.

Strong leadership applied to people with a sense of duty, produces powerful results.

Thank you

Wolf Babbel

Partner

Notes:

1. Source book, “Why Nations Fail.” by Acemoglu and Robinson. 2012.

2. Employee participation, or emotional engagement refers to a number of things including: absenteeism, late, minimal throughput, low effectiveness, lack of communication, turnover, legalism, errors, rework, and all those things that don’t seem to attach themselves to your best employees.

3. Job satisfaction is the employer’s problem. Sense of duty to the workplace is the employee’s character.

4. A quick lesson in leadership styles. There are leaders who criticize and leaders who don’t. That’s all.

“If this year’s problems are the same as last year, - you have the wrong people.”

Jack Welch, the legendary past CEO of General Electric was quoted as saying, “when you have the right people, things keep getting better. When you have the wrong people, things keep getting worse.” Every organization has a department, a person, function where things never seem to improve. A department where this year’s problems are the same as last year’s problems. Where the requirements are dumbed down to suit what the department is capable of. Where rationalizing replaces actual results. It’s because the person in charge, is the wrong person. It’s our job to get the right person and change the results. When we get to the root of any business problem, we always find a person. Eight ways to reduce the risk of hiring failure

• Allow time. The best people aren’t reading career ads and they’re not between jobs on the day you have to hire. Hiring quickly, will increase failure.

• Spend the money to hire when you don’t have to. Hire before you need that person. Building bench strength is more costly. Collect talent when you find it because it may not present itself when you need it.

• Get out of your own way. The right person may not look like the right person. The person that looks right, is often so wrong. In-person interviews are ineffective at predicting performance because they allow wrong people to sell themselves to you. It’s called charm control.

• Clarity on your part. Hire for three primary job outcomes. Do not hire for a job description.

• Hire for culture fit. Culture means people work together, or not. It’s about pack theory. If your team doesn’t connect, your sled is not moving.

• Performance reviews, accountability. You must do performance reviews once a year to keep people’s attention and focus. Without it, bullies and nepotism rule, productivity slows, and turnover results.

• Don’t hire for potential. Hire for skills. Your highest chance of success is hiring someone who has done 80% of exactly what you need done.

• Hire for potential. When your new hire is surrounded and supported by a larger team. Where you’ve allowed for a development curve. If you have a psychological profile to guide your decision. When a character trait is important. For example, character traits such as problem solving, sales aptitude, follow through, interpersonal skills, leadership, intelligence, EQ, etc., are all qualities that can be more important in a role than the experience or knowledge about the role itself.

If you notice things keep getting better, you have the right people! On the other hand, if you find things keep getting worse, you have the wrong person in the role. You know what you have to do. Let's change that, and we'll change your organization.We build companies, one great person at a time.

Thank you

Wolf Babbel

Partner

Things I like,

Great books. Manufacturing people all read ‘The Goal,” but the ideas apply to any role anywhere. The book is “The Goal” A Process of Ongoing Improvement. Jan 1992, by Eliyahu M. Goldratt. He passed away a few years ago. My big take-away was the theory of constraints, TOC. If you’re working on anything but the choke point, you’re not changing anything.

Ideas. “Work life balance is the language of slavery.” You may be in the wrong role. When we’re doing what we’re meant to do, time stands still, we have endless energy, we are in total balance.

Odd questions. “Tell me what gets you up in the morning that has nothing to do with work?” Is it legal in an interview? It’s a useful question though not work related. Or is it?

Would you rehire your key executives?

• HBR article, building a team of "A" players.

• Can they? Will they? Hire those who will.

Would you rehire your key executives?

In a thousand boardrooms, the answer is not clear. Why is that?

Over time, differences, strengths and weaknesses all crystallize. Executives adopt positions, which may have changed over time, but now are very fixed. For the same reasons our spouse’s character seems so crystallized after twenty years. Your partner will tell you what you’re like and she will be right. After a decade, key management groups behave the same way. Nobody changes anymore. Mindsets are set in stone.

The phrase, “most people seem normal until you get to know them” stems from the same idea. It’s why the American people liked Obama a lot better before they got to know him. Today, eight years later, about 60% think he can’t deliver. Today, there are more companies closing, leaving the USA than are being created. America the client, hired the wrong executive and is paying the price. Hiring problems are easier to correct before you put someone on payroll.

We’re all faced with the daunting task of predicting how someone will behave one year from now and whether the strengths we see today are real and permanent. I wish the resume and the interview were more connected to the people we eventually hire. When people decisions are correct, a company and a country, flourishes. When we hire, or elect someone for the wrong reasons, the country or a company, flounder.

Occasionally I still read Harvard Business Review but over two decades, HBR has stopped analyzing successful business’ and favors ideological theories about how companies and management methods ought to work, not how they actually work. Self determination is replaced with self absorption. The kind of research which supports actions such as Target Canada, bankrupt after 18 months, paying employees 4 months severance pay. HBR will find the missing soul of any company. I remember a time when after 18 months with an employer, your severance was exactly two weeks working notice.

“Building a team of “A” players”

Harvard Business review, Jan. 2012, entitled “Gilt Groupe’s CEO on Building a Team of A players. I think we can do better, but I’ll address the points below.

• “CEO should spend more time on recruiting and managing people than on any other activity.”Agree. Construction companies often surprise me. The president of a company with 300 employees will be in the loop for hiring a project manager. That’s a good thing, but it doesn’t carry equally into other industries. Construction projects are more like campaigns, or movies. Project based, start and finish.

• “A senior HR person, should be one of the most important people in the company.”It depends. HR Managers who view HR as a political role should not be in key positions. HR managers who see their role as selecting and optimizing people, can be part of the key management group.

• "Your best people are usually underpaid. Reward them with performance pay.”Patronizing, how can you disagree? It may or may not be true, while always popular to say. Every executive can make this decision on their own.

• “People leave their jobs because they don’t like their managers.”True. People don’t quit companies, they quit managers. The immediate person you have to deal with on a daily basis determines whether your work life is great or not.

• “A reference is more important than an interview or a resume.”True. Add to that, psychographic testing. Resumes tell us if a person “can” do the job. References and tests tell us if the person “will” do the job.

Would you rehire your key executives? I hope yes but chances are you’d like to make some changes. Your spouse? Would you remarry the same person? I hope your answer is Yes!

Keep executives because they “will” do the job. Not because they can.

Thank you

Wolf Babbel, Partner

Metrik Management Inc.

Email wolf@managing.ca

Executive search

Retained search