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?