The HR Whisperer

 Toyota’s recent woes with automobile manufacturing defects and the dragging of their feet in responding to the resulting safety and customer issues has left a lot of people feeling cold right now.  This, combined with the record brisk temps we’ve been having anyway  is wreaking havoc on the car buying public and our collective psyche. 

Well, maybe I’m the only one who’s collective psyche is cold.  

 John Rosevear of the The Motley Fool points out that the problem really isn’t so much the safety issues, which are bad and need fixing, but more with the “company’s longtime pattern of responding to problems with a mix of denial and foot shuffling.”

 And apparently it is going to get worse. 

John goes on to say that,

 “Officials in high places in the U.S. are getting cranky…on Tuesday [February 16^th], the Department of Transportation ordered Toyota to turn over documents related to various safety issues.  That may not sound like a big deal, but it is — the DOT is aggressively looking for evidence that Toyota knew of safety defects but didn’t take appropriate action. And if they find that evidence? Oh boy.”

Suddenly, it’s getting hot in here.

Many companies have faced recalls – I distinctly remember Johnson & Johnson’s recall of its Tylenol product  as I worked for The Southland Corporation (parent company of  7-ELEVEN food stores) at the time and in the absence of our area manager had to tell our franchise owners to remove the analgesic from the shelves.  Bad situation.  Good decision.

But the product recall itself is not the entire issue; the more important issue is how the company deals with the recall. 

Which really is trust, isn’t it  – customer trust in whether or not it is safe to purchase the company’s products, and employee trust in whether or not leadership is upfront in walking the talk.

J&J’s doing a great job.  Toyota’s not.

The president of Toyota’s Georgetown, KY plant says company workers are taking the series of recalls personally.

Of course they are.

It seems that Toyota built its reputation on excellence, reliability, customer service and value.  But the company values listed on its website say:  “We believe…in hard work…that good neighbors make good company and vice versa…that the world is getting bigger, but resources aren’t…in the value of diversity – it’s what makes life interesting.”

I don’t about you, but I don’t take away anything about integrity and trust from those values.  Maybe they are implied, but if company leadership refuses to accept responsibility for its mistakes and doesn’t even acknowledge that trust and integrity are important components of doing business, then what can employees believe in?

Now, I’m not saying that if it’s not written down, it doesn’t exist.  But we do know that mutual trust is a critical factor in the employer-employee relationship.  If trust exists, employees have a pretty good idea of what company life they can expect and how the company will behave.  When that trust has been breached, as it has been with Toyota, that relationship changes dramatically.

Or maybe the relationship really wasn’t there to begin with.

The best way to maintain trust is to keep from breaking it in the first place.  Leadership integrity, as demonstrated by behavior, is crucial.  That’s Leadership 101.

So, it really is not just Toyota’s products that need to be recalled; I think it’s also time to recall its leadership.

Yes, this is really me in Steamboat, CO!

With the new year beginning, I started thinking about what the year might hold for the workplace and employees.  Well, I’ll be honest; I was really thinking about snow and skiing.  Those two are at least fun —  I know,  I know.  Unless you have to get on the roof with the hairdryer to de-ice the gutters before the second storm hits and the snow wrecks the house (true story).   Been there, done that.  Sunny Florida beckoned.  I went.  Still miss snow, though.

But it did get me thinking about employees and their needs.  There’s this old adage that says, red sky at night, sailors’ delight; red sky at morning sailors take warning.  Meteorologists and sailors alike know that a red dawn means high water content from an approaching low pressure system.  Simply put, a [snow] storm is brewing.

Well, we have a red dawn coming.  Employers have enjoyed loyalty from their workforce, especially with the down economy.  While 2010 may still be a downer, things seem to be looking up job-wise, which means that employees will soon be on the move again.  There’s a tempest coming and with it new work ethics, attitudes and priorities.  It’s the perfect storm.

But, in spite of record unemployment, a dismal economy, and Gen Y entering the workforce, employees still have the same expectations they always did.  Spherion points out in its 2009 Emerging Workforce Study that despite the significant change workers have witnessed over the past few years, there is surprisingly little change in how they perceive the employment relationship.  While people may stay at an organization because the current economy demands they do so, holding a job and being motivated in that position are two vastly different things. 

So, how can organizations prepare for the stormy employer-employee relationship in 2010?  Three things: 1) concentrate on the social-emotional connection, 2) offer developmental opportunities that link to the organizational mission, and 3) take advantage of social media.

          Focus on the social-emotional connection.  One of the greatest causes of misery for employees is the feeling that the organization they work for isn’t interested in who they are and what goes on in their lives.  Combat this by training supervisors in social-emotional intelligence.  No matter what the business climate, the generation of the worker, or the technology available, all people want to feel important.  The Hawthorne Studies of 1924 found that if managers paid more attention and cared about employees, it raised morale and increased productivity.  That still holds true today: a recent worldwide engagement study that found that organizations with the highest percent of motivated employees increased income 19% and earnings per share 28%.  Creating the social-emotional connection also means that basic HR programs have to be in place to meet employee needs.  This includes having a decent compensation and benefits package, providing accommodations for the disabled; offering flexible work arrangements, establishing special-interest networks, and presenting good career prospects.

          Provide developmental opportunities that link to the organization’s mission and vision.  The “perfect storm” of the emerging employment contract implies that there will never be job security, that employment will be contingent on added value, and that workers have the right to demand the freedom and resources to do their jobs well.  So, if workers are to add value, help them by providing ample opportunity to improve skills and capabilities.  There are many ways to do this such as through education and training, job enrichment or enlargement, coaching and feedback.

          Take advantage of social media.  Social media is the new way of connecting and tech-savvy workers are using it to keep in touch with friends and family, share information, surf for a new job, and provide opinions on their work and their workplace.  Social media is a virtual conversation and because of this, business is now a virtual conversation.  With the advent of social media, an organization’s brand or reputation can be literally one comment away from disaster – from a Twitter blurb, Facebook post or Epinions review.  Someone out there is talking about the organization and they can say whatever it is they want.  What you can do though, is help manage the conversation.

Managing the conversation however, does not mean telling employees what to say.  It means creating an authentic atmosphere where people can initiate a conversation.  In the era of business transparency, empowering people to tell the truth can be risky, but also rewarding.  Think about how your organization can use social media to its advantage.  Introduce rules of engagement for employees and encourage them participate with an understanding of those rules.  Use social connections to share information about the company – create organization Facebook pages, Twitter accounts, or company wikis and blogs where people can share information, celebrate accomplishments, trade opinions. If something bad pops up, have a person in the organization accountable for responding to it appropriately.  Just keep the conversation going.

While workers may be staying in their respective jobs due to the economy, if the relationship is not a strong one – or is abused – when the storm is over, employees will leave for greener pastures.  Whether it’s today or tomorrow, organizations that invest in their people will find that their people will invest in them.

We are getting close to the 30^th anniversary of the Weingarten Rights.  It’s funny that I came across an article in a local newspaper about a Florida appellate court ruling that the Manatee County School Board had no right to prevent a high school teacher (under investigation for inappropriate behavior with a student) to have an attorney present when he was to be interviewed by district investigators.  The ruling came after two similar decisions were already made by an administrative law judge and the Florida Public Employees Relations Committee.

The teacher was fired because the District said, “only dues-paying members of the Manatee Education Association — which represents the district’s teachers — are entitled to legal representation by the union, and that private attorneys could not represent members of the bargaining unit.”    This fellow was not union-represented.

I’m not an attorney and I’m not as up to speed where unions are concerned because I don’t deal with them on a regular basis, but from an HR standpoint the decision to not allow representation just doesn’t make any sense to me.   The school board attorney said he “thinks the court ignored the law,” but I disagree.

According to the U.S. Supreme Court (NLRB vs. Weingarten, Inc. 420 U.S. 251, 88 LRRM 2689, 1975), employees have rights to union representation at investigatory interviews – these are called the Weingarten Rights.  The State of Florida agrees (Seitz v. Duval Co. Sch. Bd., Fla. PERC Case #8H-CA-764-1015, G.E.R.R. 767:14,1978).  Violation of this law by an organization results in an unfair labor practice.

Now, an investigatory interview happens when a supervisor questions a employee to obtain information that could be used for disciplinary action or when a supervisor asks the employee to defend his or her conduct.  According to Weingarten, the employee has to make the request; it’s not management’s obligation to inform him of this right.  Under the rules management can either stop the questioning until the rep arrives or call off the interview. 

There is also case law from 2000 supporting the practice of nonunion worker representation at investigatory interviews or meetings that could result in disciplinary action.  As a matter of fact, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruled that nonunion employees have the right to a representative during an interview that might reasonably lead to disciplinary action. In a close decision issued July 10, 2000 (Epilepsy Foundation of Northeast Ohio, 331 NLRB No. 92), the Labor Board found that the so-called Weingarten rights of unionized employees also apply to employees not represented by a union.

The NLRB goes on to say that the right to representation comes from the right of employees to engage in activities for the purposes of mutual aid and protection under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The Act defines this right as involving employee activity, thus precluding a request for representation by an outside attorney, government agent, or union official.

This is where things get sticky.

From what I’ve read about the case, the teacher did request representation and was denied.

Other news reports say the school district really fired the teacher for gross insubordination, misconduct and policy violations because he did not cooperate with the investigation, not because of the allegations against him.  So, what was he really fired for – denying the interview without representation or for policy violation?

I’m not suggesting that suspension or termination is inappropriate given the serious nature of the allegations against this teacher.  What I am suggesting is that the school district was wrong on preventing the teacher from having representation with him and could have prevented this mess to begin with.

What do you think?