Resentment and Anger: When the "Golden Rule" is NOT applied

     Most people have a general knowledge of what the "Golden Rule" indicates. It is not confined to the Christian religion.  It is also featured in Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, and most major religions. It is also known by, and sometimes followed better by, those who do not follow a religion. It has many phrasings but, basically, it is to "treat others as you would like to be treated".

     (Note that people tend to apply "Golden Rule" to a LOT of very diverse things which have little, if anything, to do with THE Golden Rule.)

     Much of the time, the Golden Rule is treated only as an ideal goal of behavior. It is something to strive for, something as a guide to be a better person. But, what about the results of NOT applying the Golden Rule? This is something which weakens our businesses and society on a daily basis.

     You have just gotten a new job. You are a bit nervous as you haven't done this work before. You want to make sure you do the job well and have the company proud of you and be happy they chose to hire you. At the end of the first week, you have completed your first assignment -- turning it over to the test department a week before your manager told you it was expected. But, on the second week, you find yourself called into the office. They ask you why you checked a website selling products during your lunch hour. They ask you if you normally only type 20 words per minute and why you were only active on your keyboard for 25% of your time. They are obviously spying on what you were doing and how efficiently they think you were working. (You obviously were working very well to be able to turn over your assignment in half the expected time). Do you still feel like doing your best for the company? Do you feel trusted? Do you have your resume up-to-speed? 

     Imagine that you are yourself. You have saved and have money in your pocket. You want to buy a nice gift for your mother and you are willing to spend more. So, you go into a nice store which has more expensive items. When you enter the store, all eyes fall upon you. No, they aren't deciding which among them can be first to serve you. The eyes are all questioning, suspicious. You haven't done anything wrong and your only plans are to get something nice and give money to the store yet you are treated this way. They are not only NOT treating you the way they would like to be treated but they are going out of their way to treat you just how they would NOT want to be treated. What would your normal, reasonable, rational response be? Frustration? Resentment? Anger?

     You are walking down the street because you would like to get some exercise. You have reached a part of town that you don't normally walk in but the sidewalks are clean and you see a nice park in the distance. There are a few others walking along the street also because it is a nice day. A police car pulls up beside you and asks you what you are doing and why you are there. After a few minutes, they pull away but not before telling you that they expect you to be gone when they return. The police car doesn't stop beside any of the other people walking along the street. Are you still enjoying the day? Are you still looking at the other people, treated much better, as fellow strollers? Do you want to return to that neighborhood? Are you angry? Underneath that anger, are you also afraid? Do you feel served and protected?

     There is an old cliché (yes, there are a LOT of such clichés) -- "you create what you fear". If you treat your employees as untrustworthy they will eventually be untrustworthy. If you treat your customers as potential thieves then they will be sorely tempted to become thieves -- after all, they are already being treated that way, why not? (Most will still continue to be honest even when badly treated.) If you treat your fellow people as if they are not fellow people then you will divide and ostracize. 

     So, following the Golden Rule may be hard. It may be an unachievable goal for all times and situations. But deliberately negating the Golden Rule (let's call it the "Corroded Rule") is sure to cause problems and degrade society.

     And does.

Remote/hybrid work: When change is forced upon industries

 

     The recent pandemic hit the world hard. There were the horrible direct effects of death and lingering illness. A colleague lost his mother and an uncle to the disease and many others grieved. But there were also many indirect effects. Industries that were associated with travel ground to a halt. Most industries found themselves in the position of being required to learn how to work remotely.

     Remote work was not created by the latest pandemic. Remote workers have existed for a long time. It has long been used and discussed but, without impetus to management for change, little had changed over the years.

     Within the "cottage industries" (textiles made an extensive use of such), people in their own homes would be assigned work that they were expected to make of a certain quality within a given time. The cottage industries extended the square footage of the factories by making use of a network of physical spaces.

     Beyond the cottage industries, a certain degree of remote/hybrid work has existed for many other areas that require, or allow, movement from place to place as part of the job. These job categories include customer support, article writing/journalism, sales, and other mobile-requisite tasks.

     Prior to the latest pandemic, however, little shifted from year to year.  The recent pandemic forced most businesses into a remote/hybrid situation. Forced change usually means difficult, and uncomfortable, change.

     What were the results? Some industries had travel an integral part of their business and they were hit hardest. Factories, which required people to be present, had difficulties. Newly created (not the ones that had already been in existence) remote education had very erratic results (my 3 sons' colleges were quite inept at handling such). Restaurants shifted to delivery but suffered from personnel problems. Many industries in which the product wasn't physical shifted to a "cottage industry" model. But the economy survived -- it did not all collapse. Most businesses found that they could survive, and some even thrive, with a remote workforce.

     Survival does not necessarily mean thriving. Could the company do as well, or better, in a remote situation? In some cases, the answer is yes as measured by output and revenue. What about long-term? Can they continue to grow, innovate, and produce in a remote situation? What about a hybrid situation? Is that an improvement or does it end up with some benefits, and some problems, of each?

     There isn't a single answer for companies. Much of the overhead pain of transition has already been taken. It is a good time for serious analysis and discussion; it is unlikely to be beneficial to try to quickly retreat to old models.

     An important part of evaluation and consideration is feedback on how well the process is working. In my next blog, I will talk about factors on judging success.

"Quiet quitting" versus work/life balance

 

     As best as I've been able to interpret, the newly popular term "quiet quitting" is a phrase used to indicate that a person has reached the border of how much time and energy they are willing to put into their paid work and where they feel they need to put the time and energy into keeping their families, and themselves, healthy and productive.

     Of course, that is NOT what the term "quiet quitting" calls to mind. I don't know WHO in the world comes up with these meme labels but whoever picked the term appears to be quite happy with the pre-pandemic US (and some other global cultures) status quo of putting in as much time and energy as work appears to "require". Such places the control over work/life boundaries firmly in the hands of management. From some points of view, that seems reasonable for a business.

     However, there have been MANY studies that indicate that this approach is counter-productive. Work efficiency declines, and the number of need-to-recover-from mistakes increases, as a person pushes themselves beyond what they can support. The current exploration of the 4-day work week is one approach to keeping employees productive. There are other methods.

     Within Europe, there are many limits placed on work environment/home boundaries. A strict number of hours that can be worked (few, if any, after hours calls and work assignments). A reasonable amount of vacation allocated per employee which they are required to take. Maternity/paternity leaves. Und so weiter (and so forth). These are methods of legislating work/life boundaries.

     The scary part, for some, of "quiet quitting" (and the reason it is not called "life balance maintenance") is that it moves the control over maintenance of work/life allocation to the hands of the employees. It is true that many employees are not used to this control. In many cases, it might have a similar effect as "unlimited PTO" does -- when people take almost NO paid time off -- not even as many days as they would have been allotted within a fixed vacation benefit. In others, they may not find themselves with adequate self-motivation to do the amount of work expected on their work assignments.

     I will stop using the term "q q" -- and move over to "life balance maintenance" (which I consider to be a better description). Achieving this IS a challenge for the employee and the company. It requires good communication conduits and awareness of each person's situation. There will be times when the business seriously needs an extra push of effort from its peoples -- but it should not become an expected way of life. If the communication lines are open and there is respect in all directions, then almost every employee (if at all possible within their circumstances) will put in extra effort. For most employees, it is harder for them to recognize that they are reaching diminishing returns than to accept another short night's sleep and missed ballgame.

Profits and Ethics: Partners in Success

 

     I am going to start this blog with something I know is not true -- but, since I WANT it to be true, I will make it my postulate.

All companies want to do GOOD in hand with doing WELL.

     Doing good makes a positive impact on the community, society, the environment, and every aspect of life you can think of. Doing well involves making the company a commercial success.

     The way our economic systems are structured, it is easy for a company to turn away from the path of trying to do good in order to do what appears to be the most profitable process. The "bottom line" is the result of adding all kinds of numbers and projections together, subtracting costs, adding income, getting interest from positive cash flow, etc.

     In such a situation, it is easy to say "if I increase my costs, I will decrease my profits". Increase the number in the spreadsheet and it will give you the number you are expecting. So, doesn't that prove that your surmise is correct? Yes -- but only if all the numbers are completely independent of each other. There are usually dependencies among the numbers but they aren't always easy to recognize and companies (and their boards, owners, and stockholders) want stability and projections that they can rely on. Possible, but unproven, dependencies are not given enough weight to override that change of number in the spreadsheet.

     Let's take a number that is in every company's spreadsheet -- salaries. Increase salaries, decrease profits. That's what the numbers say -- once again, assuming independence between the numbers in the spreadsheet.

     The search, for the lowest salaries to be paid, leads to many things. How do you succeed in paying people less? Outsource to other locations that have lower wages. Pay just enough that there are enough desperate people willing to work for the wage. Eliminate safety measures, increase working hours without additional pay, intensify the working hours so the body and/or mind is always working at peak output and left drained and exhausted at the end of the day (crippling their ability to positively interact in any family unit). Lots of ways to wring the sponge.

     Lower wages equals greater profits -- that's what the spreadsheet says.

     But does that mean that higher wages equals fewer profits? You might assume so but here come the interdependencies. How much does attrition and turnover cost? Nothing directly -- but REPLACEMENT of those resources cost something. It costs a lot of something. Lower wages will lead to higher attrition and turnover (not that wages are the only criterion for such events). So, when you decrease that number in your spreadsheet, be sure that you increase the numbers for recruiting and training, and decrease the factors involved with productivity. And the more you decrease the salary number the more the other numbers have to change. A 30% attrition rate will cost more than twice that of a 15% attrition rate because you are not only increasing recruiting/training but constant turnover is a terrible thing for productivity.

     Productivity is related to more than salaries, of course. There are many factors and I won't even attempt to capture a majority of them within this blog. The takeaway is that productivity is a huge factor in profitability of a company and that concentrating on only one number independent of other factors is likely to be a very large mistake.

     Increased salary not only has an effect on productivity numbers but it also is a contribution to sales numbers. The more people who have money to spend on products, the more money enters the economic system so they can buy your products. Ignoring the distribution of people who have how much money -- the greater the number of people who can afford to purchase your product, the more you can sell. "Trickle up" is a real thing.

     Beyond that salary number, there are many other factors that involve treatment of employees, communities, and surrounding world. Some of those "soft" factors include equal treatment, positive purpose, comfortable work environment. good communication, and so forth.

     Profitable businesses recognize that racism, sexism, genderism, Xisms, and anti-Xisms all are counter-productive and hurt profitability. That can be shown easily within the spreadsheet based on productivity and sales. You don't want to turn away potential customers and, since creativity and abilities are well distributed within all of humanity, isms within the company will decrease the ability to produce and to compete.

     Closely related to "isms", harassment also decreases productivity and morale. Different from the "isms", harassment can, and does, occur within various groups and not "just" between groups. Positive treatment -- encouragement, acknowledgement, elimination of obstacles lead to improvement both within the individuals involved but also morale, productivity, and positive interactions with the customer base.

     The bottom line of this blog is that numbers within a spreadsheet are not independent. Doing the "right thing" can increase productivity, morale, positive interactions with the customer base -- which in turn leads to greater profits and dividends.