Category: Management

I recently gave a talk about employee engagement and organizational culture in Boston. Near the end of my presentation, the topic of gender parity came up for discussion and I shared my thoughts on Massachusetts’ new law (which goes into effect next year) prohibiting employers from asking about a job applicant’s salary history. This is the first statute of its kind in the country and other states are already in the process of passing similar laws. Personally, I think it’s a step in the right direction toward the greater goal of diversity and inclusion in the workplace. Women have traditionally been paid less than men in the same role, so lawmakers’ intent is to eliminate this pay gap by requiring employers to compensate workers based on their value, not their previous salary. I feel proud to live in a state that leads the way for diversity, inclusion, and equity because I believe in the importance of all three. Massachusetts has historically been a forerunner for worker and human rights, notably passing the nation’s first minimum wage law which specifically guaranteed women pay commensurate with the cost of living.

Of course, the concepts of diversity and gender parity are not without detractors. After my talk, one of the audience members approached me to express his concerns. There were quite a few more women in attendance at this event, so I wasn’t terribly surprised that he waited until most of the room cleared before sharing his views. The man told me that, after a long career in the tech space, he had come to resent all of the diversity initiatives being foisted upon him and other members of his cohort — highly-skilled, white, middle-aged, men — because they made him feel deprived of opportunity and that his contributions were cheapened. “I’m so sick of this diversity stuff”, he said.

Rather than educate him on the business case for diversity and spark a lengthy debate that would keep me from my lunch (I can get hangry), I decided to take the path of least resistance and just hear the guy out because he seemed dead set on his opinion. I listened to him lament the diversity-driven hiring practices that favored women or minorities over equally qualified white men. He also argued that women taking maternity leave should not be paid as much as men because they aren’t adding the same amount of value to the organization during their absences. As he continued, a thought struck me: Men like the one with whom I was speaking aren’t trying to put anybody down. They just prefer a meritocracy wherein people are rewarded based on what they can do, not what they look like. At best, they simply see no personal value in supporting diversity efforts. At worst, they feel discriminated against when organizations take any kind of affirmative action to elevate marginalized groups of employees.

This all comes down to the challenge of engaging Caucasian males in the push for a more diverse and inclusive modern workplace. Deloitte recently made headlines and raised eyebrows when it announced the dissolution of its Employee Resource Groups. Their objective in doing so is certainly laudable: Bring white men into the diversity conversation by replacing ERGs with inclusion councils to convene employees from disparate backgrounds, including senior executives. That way everyone can gather and discuss how the organization could better serve diverse talent and customer bases. But will it work? I used to co-lead a Women & Allies ERG, and I will admit that both interest and impact among men were pretty low. So maybe it is time to rethink the way we foster diversity and inclusion.

A good place to start is taking a look at the concerns white men are raising. There’s a lot to unpack just from my relatively brief conversation with the man at the event. For example, let’s follow his train of thought about maternity leave and pay equity a bit further. What if a woman isn’t pregnant when she’s hired? Should she still be paid less based on the possibility that she might get pregnant and take a leave of absence down the road? If she chooses to have a family, should she be deemed less eligible for a promotion because her commitment to the company seems lacking? What if her husband decides to take paternity leave while she goes back to work right away? Should his pay get docked? What about a man who plans to adopt and needs to take time off from work to bond with his child? The argument that women should be paid less or treated less-favorably because they have child-rearing responsibilities just doesn’t hold up. It oversimplifies a very complicated issue and puts people in the unfair position of having to choose between job and family.

Still, thoughtful examination won’t necessarily stop white men from feeling like they are somehow being slighted by all this focus on diversity. There are plenty of reasons behind their resistance, such as men’s propensity, on average, toward being competitive and not wanting to lose their position in a hierarchy. Whatever the cause, it’s important to involve them in the process and help them understand that diversity and inclusion are meant to benefit everyone, not unfairly give preference to one group over another. Perhaps Deloitte is in the right vicinity, if not on the right track, with its new D&I strategy. Discussions about issues pertaining to diversity shouldn’t be relegated to peripheral interest groups who haven’t the captive audience nor the organizational clout to make a difference. Those at the top (roughly 95% of Fortune 500 CEOs are white men) must be involved and invested. It’s simply a fact that diversity is and should be a critical priority in today’s ultra-competitive, hyper-connected business climate. Consumer preferences can ebb and sway, leaving rigid, old-school companies unprepared to respond. Businesses need new and different perspectives to stay relevant. They need a diverse workforce to survive.

I once had a manager who told me “Business is all about relationships.” It really is. The relationships a business forges with its customers are crucial; that’s a given. But first leaders have to establish and nurture relationships with the people who connect the business with its customers: its employees. Diversity isn’t about reaching quotas or excluding members of a certain group. It’s about cultivating an environment that attracts and engages the best talent from all walks of life. It involves building strong relationships with those employees so they feel inspired to help their company thrive in a complex and diverse global economy. That’s how the best organizations will win. And who doesn’t like winning?

About the author:

Jonathan D. Villaire is a bridge-builder, truth-teller, and advocate for empathy who helps leaders understand how to effectively engage their employees and, more importantly, how to stop disengaging them. He founded Cognize Consulting with the aim of giving supervisors, managers, and executives a new perspective on employee engagement: See employees as human beings, not as human capital. Understand how to create an employee experience that increases retention and attracts top talent. Engage employees with a leadership mindset of empathy, curiosity, and humility. He is a speaker, coach, and author of the upcoming book The Stepford Employee Fallacy: The Truth about Employee Engagement in the Modern Workplace.

There’s an old proverb used by many to describe the leader/follower dynamic with respect to employee engagement: “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.” This is a way of saying ultimately people will only do what they choose, even if you show them the way. In other words, just as a horse has to choose to drink, an employee must choose to be engaged.

Well, yes and no. Getting the horse to drink is the desired outcome, but what happens up to and during that point will influence his willingness to do so.

• • If you’ve been running the horse ragged without any time to recuperate, he won’t have the energy to make it to water.

• • If you’ve been shouting at the horse and beating him with a stick, he won’t trust you no mater where you’re trying to lead him.

• • If the terrain is rocky and you force him to walk in busted, rusty horseshoes, he isn’t going to be all that thrilled about going the distance.

• • If you feed the horse 1 pound of oats a day when he really should be getting 3 pounds, he’s going to focus on finding food elsewhere instead of following you.

• • If the water is polluted or tastes funky, the horse isn’t going to drink.

Here’s what I’m getting at: If the employee experience at your organization sucks, employee engagement isn’t likely to happen. Too many leaders fall into the trap of thinking a lack of engagement is the employee’s fault; that they’re choosing not to be engaged. Take a good look at what it’s like to work for you before making that judgement. And start with the basics — a reasonable workload, an empathetic leadership style, effective tools to get the job done, fair pay, and a healthy work culture. Then make adjustments if anything is wrong. As a leader, it’s your job to create an employee experience that makes them want to go above and beyond. 

Horses need to be enticed, not forced, to drink water. What kind of employee experience are you creating, and is it enough to entice engagement? Remember, employees don’t engage themselves. Leaders engage employees.

Which is more valuable to an employer, the job skills employees possess or the skill of behaving with integrity. I can appreciate how this is a very unfair question. One can argue that we need both in our employees and that would be a fair statement.  Others may claim that behaving with integrity is not a skill at all but a measure of one’s character.  Job skills are worthless (as well as job knowledge) without integrity and any employer who holds onto an employee who knows a lot about the job but who has a pattern of broken integrity is costing the organization in ways that cannot be measured.

If you have ever had to manage a poor performer you know the stress it can cause and the energy it can drain from you.  To manage a poor performer, it is first necessary to have a clear definition of a poor performer. The most useful definition is: “an employee who demonstrates a consistent and frequent pattern of broken integrity.”  It is their inability or unwillingness to be have with integrity on a consistent basis that makes them a poor performer and a candidate for firing regardless of how much they know.

Adopting this definition helps make firing an employee much easier. Poor performers are shouting with their behaviors “Fire me!” They are “deselecting”. Deselecting means they are making the choice to leave you and/or your organization.  It’s their choice not yours and you merely need to help them to fulfill that wish.  You are merely deciding the timing.

There is another benefit to adopting this definition.  It enables you to take the bias out of the decision making.  With the bias out, the organization is better protected from legal action.  There are two crucial factors required for this deselection strategy to work properly.  First, an embrace of the definition of poor performer is necessary (“an employee who demonstrates a consistent and frequent pattern of broken integrity”).

Second, there needs to be a clear definition of integrity.  If the definition of integrity is clear and the definition of poor performer is clear, these two definitions work in cooperation to remove the bias.  Here is the definition of integrity I use in my business.  It has four parts and is operational.  It describes behaviors which makes it easy to observe and to measure.  The observable behaviors make it easier to remove the bias.

Integrity:

• Make only agreements[1] you intend to keep.
• Immediately communicate when you can’t keep agreements to those who need to know.
• Admit when a mistake is made, apologize, and look at the system[2] as a team for a solution (no blame, make no excuses, no complaining).
• When a mistake is seen from others communicate it respectfully, ask they provide a sincere apology, and work to correct it and prevent it from occurring in the future.

By adopting these two definitions a leader can influence all employees to self-manage their own agreements and to therefore self-manage their own integrity.

Anyone who willing and able to manage their agreements has the basic ability to perform. Anyone either unwilling or unable to manage their own agreements does not have a basic ability to perform.

Behaving with integrity is a basic skill and when it’s missing, the person cannot perform his or her basic duties.  Even if the person has exceptional skills in other areas, the absence of an ability or willingness to keep their own agreements will neutralize the other skills and/or knowledge.  In many respects Bernie Madoff was a knowledgeable and intelligent investor.  His lack of integrity cost his customers their money and cost him his freedom.

Recently a client needed to address concerns with one of the employees.  This employee had worked there for many years and was a bit of a trouble maker. He would often have disrespectful outbursts with co-workers. He often would refuse to follow through on agreements and would often break agreements.

It was brought to our attention by a co-worker he had threatened another co-worker with bodily harm.  He was confronted.  He admitted it and was promptly warned about the policy, and suspended for one day without pay.  When he returned to work he refused to participate in mandatory meetings, and he purposely destroyed company property in protest to his suspension.

This pattern of broken agreements and disrespect was a clear indication of deselection.  For years he had caused disturbances and the leadership would usually ignore them because his job knowledge and experience was in short supply in the industry.  Once the leadership saw the poor performance pattern, and once the organizational leadership saw the waste he was creating, it was easier to see how he was actually deselecting.

Always put integrity first as the list of skills needed to be a high performer.  Putting the job skills ahead of integrity skills will predictably cause more waste for everyone.

[1] Agreement: An activity that is specific, measurable and time sensitive and has a predictable process to achieve it.

[2] System: A series of interdependent processes that achieve an aim.