workplace wellness with a side of donuts.

This Dilbert strip really resonated with me because at my current job I spend about 30 percent of my time working on our wellness program, and I also spent a great deal of time at my previous job working with their wellness program.  Both companies had the dilemma of wanting a healthier workforce (for the various cost and productivity benefits), but at the same time not wanting to give up their beloved Employee Appreciation Punchki Day, or their tradition of ordering pizza for each new hire orientation.

Implementing (successful) wellness programs is one of many situations where strong top management support is needed. Top management looks at their rising healthcare costs and automatically decide they want a healthier workforce, so they send their benefit minions out to make everyone healthy.  But what top management doesn't realize is that just sending people out to do the work for them is not effective.  Their buy-in is needed for a wellness program to be successful.  They have to develop a program that will set examples and create a cause that workers want to be a part of.  They have to be committed to the cause of the wellness program.  It can't be something that is only used when it is convenient or when a serious event happens.

Creating a compelling cause is important for leaders because a lot of the time they will go out there and talk only of the reasons for a wellness program.  But employees do not want to hear that they are getting too expensive for the company so they need to be healthier.  Instead, leaders should communicate their vision, whatever it may be, of how the wellness program will improve their employees' lives.  I would be a part of a cause that improves my life, but I wouldn't be a part of a cause that only focused on saving the company money. 

Leaders also should lead by example.  They have to personally live up to the expectation of becoming a healthier workforce.  Top down decisions have to be made with that expectation in mind.  For example, employees at my company become very confused when the wellness committee pressures them about making healthy lifestyle choices, but at the same time the VP of Human Resources won't back down from the unhealthy snack choices at our monthly  Employee Appreciation events.  This is a sign of top management not being committed to the cause.

I wonder if there's a company out there that has a wellness program with strong leadership support...

leading the techie workforce.

I find leaders in the Information Technology (IT) field interesting to look at because to me, they can easily lose their right to lead.  I believe leaders have earned the right to lead if they are able to add value to their team. They have to be a valuable resource.  There has to be a reason why a specific person is in the leadership position and not someone else.  Either  they have more knowledge, they manage people better, or have more experience.  But they have to be bringing something else to the table than the rest of their team.  If this can't be done, why do you need a manager?  Or a director?  All a company is doing then is paying someone a higher salary to do the exact same job as a direct report.

Zach, my boyfriend, currently works in the IT field.  He works as a Network Administrator for a home furnishing company.  And at the age of 25, with only one year of experience after college, he is more qualified to be in his boss's position, Director of Information Technology, than his boss is.  This is because his boss knows nothing about new technology.  Technology is constantly changing and evolving.  It seems like new advances in technology come out every month.  Every time I turn around there's a new iPhone out, or a new version of Microsoft Office.

When people talk about earning the right to lead, most bring up experience.  This is where I start thinking about how much of a role experience plays in an IT leader's right to lead, because to me, experience is not the number one thing that helps them earn it.  Just because you have 15 years of experience working in IT does not mean that you will add value to your team.  Leaders in IT have to develop differently than other leaders.  For example, an HR Manager with 15 years of experience would be highly qualified to lead.  Because you could say that the generalist has extensive knowledge of rules and regulations, has experience dealing with a variety of HR related issues and has worked in a number of different HR roles.  With these things combined, this HR Manager would be a valuable resource to their team.  On the other hand, take someone like Zach's boss.  He has over 15 years of experience working in the IT field, but he has not earned his right to lead because 15 years ago technology was very different.  Things like Windows 7, virtualization and cloud computing did not exist, and these things, among others, are essential to performing an IT Manager's job today.  Unfortunately, Zach's boss has no knowledge of any of the above listed.  Yes, he has extensive experience  in other related areas, such as management experience, but is that really enough?

The real problem then comes in when a leader becomes a burden to their team because they cannot add value.  Zach spends a lot of his time explaining things to his boss that his boss should already know.  Or his boss will incorrectly solve problems, or answer questions from management, employees, or vendors and Zach will have to "clean up" after the mess.  This is not a leader who adds value to his team.  It is a leader who does just the opposite.

Do you agree that experience isn't the number one factor when evaluating an IT leader's right to lead?  Have you ever had a leader who knew absolutely nothing about the field they were leading in?

Side note: Another good HR related point to think about is how companies are selecting candidates in IT.  When a job posting says "minimum of 10 years of experience", what kind of "experience" is the company really looking for?  A lot of technology that is predominately used at companies today did not exist 10 years ago, so why does years of experience matter if the next person in line with 5 years of experience can perform the same job?

stupid polices.

It amazes me how many companies implement the stupidest polices.  I know I've had my fair share of them throughout my work experience.  The most recent being at my current employer.  There is actually a policy stating what specific places in the building have to be called.  For example, the cafeteria has to be called the cafe, the basement has to be called the lower level and the store (carries company merchandise and miscellaneous snacks) has to be called the shoppe.  Another good one was my "performance appraisal".  I started with my current company at the beginning of this year, 2013.  My manager was told by an HR Manager that a performance appraisal was to be completed on me, even though the evaluation would be for a time period, 2012, that I wasn't with the company.  When asked why this needed to be completed, my manager was told "because it's required for everyone to complete a performance appraisal".  Dress codes can also have some stupid polices.  I never understood the dress code policy for open toed shoes we had at a credit union I previously worked for.  We were required to wear pantyhose with any open toed shoes, even though you can still see someone's toes through pantyhose.  But this policy was only in effect Monday through Thursday. Because apparently exposed toes is only offensive on those days...

Can you imagine how much time and energy is spent on developing stupid polices?  Is this how leaders need to spent their time?  Not to mention the time of the people who have to implement and enforce the policies. Chances are they could be doing something more valuable.  Stupid polices can effect how a business runs in big ways.  Leaders rarely look at how their policies in general, not just stupid ones, are effecting their business.  But this is something they should be doing.  An example of a leader redesigning polices to create better business can be seen at Zappos.  Zappos has eliminated annual performance appraisals altogether and moved to having managers give their employees regular feedback on the same dimensions that were on the annual appraisals.  This requires managers to give constant feedback to their employees without having the required annual appraisal where they have to remember what happened 12 months ago, or just make stuff up, like my manager had to do.

What stupid polices have you had at previous and/or current employers?

stunted growth.

I once had a manager do a version of this same thing to me.  When I was 18, I worked for a popular retail company, Forever 21.  I had worked there for about eight months as a Sales Associate when a Head Cashier position became available.  I wanted this position so badly!  I approached Stephanie, my Store Manager, and told her that I felt qualified for the position because I had worked there a long time (turnover was pretty high there, so eight months was pretty good), I had two years of cashier experience (Forever 21 + my first job), I was reliable (I never missed one day of work) and my cash drawer had never been off a significant amount (over $1 was considered significant).  She agreed but wanted me to do a “trial run” where I would work in the capacity of Head Cashier for 30 days.  This is where I started to get excited because it sounded promising.  I knew I could really show her what I could do in those 30 days.  But Stephanie then went on to say that this would be in addition to my usual duties as a Sales Associate.  Talk about setting someone up for failure.  How was I supposed to perform two jobs at once?  How was she supposed to see how I would perform as a Head Cashier if I was also being seen as a Sales Associate?

Even though this proposal seemed a little unfair and not standard procedure, I still really wanted the position.  I accepted her offer and started my 30 day trial period.  And as anyone would expect, it was a little difficult managing two workloads.  All of my Sales Associate duties took precedence, because that’s what I was getting paid to do.  Also, with my store being very large and always busy, it was difficult for me to find time away from the registers and my growing pile of clothes that needed to be put back on the racks, and find time to impress Stephanie with my Head Cashier skills.  I would bust my butt to only scrounge up maybe two hours of time to work as Head Cashier.  I was not given any guidance other than Stephanie occasionally walking by and saying things like, “Rachel, why don’t you organize this jewelry display?  You have to really go above and beyond to show me you can do this position.”  All while I'm busily ringing customers up.  My coworkers were also never informed of my trial period.  No one ever acknowledged that I was supposed to be acting as Head Cashier.  At the end of my trial period I was told that I wasn’t a good fit, to try again next time and to be grateful for the experience.  (Two weeks later Stephanie hired one of her friends for the position).

 This is a good example of a leader who does not value the growth of their employees.  I confided in Stephanie and expressed an interest in progressing with the company.  What I was hoping for in return was her guidance in developing my skills.  But I learned that she had a different agenda, which was to use her Store Manager title to benefit herself.  Great leaders know that investing time, money and effort in the development of their employees is beneficial.  Leaders should help their employees achieve goals they have set for themselves (either personal or company related), because when they achieve these goals and grow, it creates a winning mindset.  And all companies want to have employees with winning mindsets.  My goal at that time in my life was to move to a position with more responsibility.  I had been working for two years and had graduated from high school, so I knew I was ready for the next step.  Soon after this incident I moved on to a job that was a better fit for me and I stayed there for 3 1/2 years.  If Stephanie would have invested time in her employees that could have been her 3 1/2 years.

where do your values go?

It's amazing to me how many leaders seem to have lost all their values during their journey to the top.  Or did these leaders ever have any values to begin with?  It seems to me that in more traditional, conservative organizations the leader with no values always makes it to the top more easily than others.  Other leaders feel drawn to these people because they "command respect" and "get things accomplished", even if they hurt others along the way.  Now I'm not talking about a company's values.  I'm talking about basic human values.  Values that every person should know and follow.  Like the ones that you learn in elementary school, such as the Golden Rule of treating others how you would like to be treated, or honesty is the best policy.

This past week I learned how badly senior management at the company I work for treats our hard working and dedicated mail manager.  I couldn't believe it when I heard that he was actually screamed at for delivering a wet Wall Street Journal.  Although, in their defense, Respect is not one of the company's cultural values.  After learning that this kind of stuff goes on at my company I began to wonder how these leaders became who they are today.  What events in their life shaped their values?  Are things like large salaries, giant offices, separate elevators and company cars tools to change a person over time?  Or do they just expose a person's true colors?  And more importantly, why do companies foster leaders with no values?

I do no have an answer for these questions (right now at least) but I do have one leadership lesson.  You do not have to change who you are to be a successful leader.  Someone who keeps their same values from entry-level all the way up to leadership will actually be more successful than someone who's values change.  Followers trust leaders when they know who the leader truly is and know that they will always be that person.  Followers no not necessarily like leadership surprises.  What if one day Tony Hsieh, CEO of Zappos, decided he wanted a giant office on a separate floor from his employees?

you can't handle the truth.

I think a big flaw with a lot of HR practices is that they are performed too late.  For example, exit interviews. Employees are only asked for feedback after they have already decided to leave the company.  What good does that do the company?  Because they have already lost the good employee.  I worked somewhere for 3 1/2 years and was only asked for my opinion once at my exit interview.  And ironically, I was leaving because of bad management.  But of course I didn't note that in my exit interview.  It wouldn't have improved the time I spent there anyways.  It's just like instructor evaluations.  Why evaluate an instructor at the end of a course?  It doesn't improve my learning experience in any way because I'm already finished with the course.  I know that sounds selfish, but I give my most honest and thoughtful opinions when I have something to gain from it.  When I don't have anything to gain from it, I don't really put much thought into it.

I have learned that the best leaders are continuously seeking feedback from their followers and want to constantly improve their performance.  Leaders first have to want feedback.  They have to prepare to hear things that they might not want to hear.  But good leaders will look at it as a learning experience and as an opportunity to improve.  Leaders also have to create an environment where employees feel safe enough to give their honest feedback.  If employees do not feel safe, the only feedback given about a leader will be about how great of a job they are doing.  Which will just continue a cycle of bad leadership.  Lastly, leaders have to commit to making improvements after receiving feedback.  The worst feeling for an employee, student, etc. is when you put a lot of time and thought into your feedback, and nothing changes.  I can't tell you how many times I've had high hopes for professors to make improvements to their course, just to hear the next semester from a friend that it is the same.  Can they not handle the truth?  Or maybe I just give bad feedback.

one day former interns will lead the world...

It's funny how interns never have names.  It's always, "have the intern do it" or "I talked to the intern".  Or my favorite, "you're just an intern".  That's how it was when I was an intern.  A lot of the time I felt like I had INTERN written in permanent marker across my forehead and all I wanted to do was cover it up.  Once people learned that I was an intern everything I said became questionable.  But when I was actually able to cover my forehead, for example, when I was on the phone, was when I performed at my best.  Not having that label made me feel much more confident in my abilities than when I had the label.  People took me more seriously.  I was respected and people listened to what I had to say because I knew the answer, not because of my title.

I think working with interns is where a lot of managers could improve on their leadership skills.  There is a constant display of power by managers.  I think that's why most get a kick out of assigning crappy jobs to interns and leaving them nameless.  Leaders always want to prove how much more knowledgeable they are than their interns.  To be more effective leaders should listen more and be open to the fact that they might not know everything, and that they can actually learn from their interns, just as their interns are learning from them.  The best leaders are willing to listen and learn.  Leaders should also work to transform internships.  There seems to be this unwritten rule that nameless interns have to be initiated by endless amounts of filing, copying and coffee fetching.  And my impression is that a lot of managers enjoy this because it's just how they were initiated at some point in their lives.  But a good leader will look to transform an internship into something more than meaningless work.  Yes, those kinds of tasks will always be there for a business to complete, but leaders need to look beyond the restriction of that's all interns are here to do. 

Now of course my internship experience wasn't as bad as I made it sound.  I actually enjoyed the experience very much and am very appreciative of everything I learned there.  But there were plenty of times when I didn't have a name when I wished I did.  I do wonder though how long this intern cycle of abuse has been going on. Were there nameless interns in the 50's?  80's?