A Day at Works

As we generally more concern about salary, benefits and position; we generally taken for granted about culture of the new company we applied for. We tend to forget that productivity, the key of career and salary increase, is a result of job satisfaction. We tend to run for higher pay-check and position without even glimpse on respect, “accountable flexibility”, atmosphere, support/ friendship, and challenge. Worse scenario is when we enter a new company with pay-check increase, but actually the position is a temp, or without understanding that the belief and value of ourselves is incompatible to what company value and belief in.

How actually corporate culture affects its employee?
The essence of culture is what company belief and value –in. These 2 will reflected to more tangible aspect of culture, namely expressed value and artifacts. Example of expressed value is “HP Way”, an employee guidance for working at Hewlett Packard. Example of artifacts is office layout, and dress code –remember how IBM called Big Blue, since the employee always wear blue suit which reflects it’s belief in professionalism, and hard work (value of IBM).

What will effect employees most, is artifacts such as:
· Working hour. Is it tight to schedule just like an army, of flexible just like an artist?
· Dress code. Do company has uniform or casual, which suggest creativity and personal responsibility?
· The office space / layout. Private space or open space which suggest openness, interaction, and teamwork.
· Extra office events for socialization. Is it strictly business or also invites personal interaction?
· Working atmosphere. Is it teamwork or individual and hostile environment?
All of these surely influence your heart and head, which in turn determine your performance, expectation and job satisfaction.

How we can detect corporate culture (belief & value, expressed value and artifacts)?
The truth is that you will never really know the corporate culture until you have worked at the company for a number of months, but you can get close to it through research and observation. Research, before you are interviewed and observe during your interview.
During interview, observe how employees interacts, how they are dressed, also observe their level of courtesy and professionalism. Furthermore you can ask questions to gain information:
· How are decisions made – and how are those decisions communicated to the staff?
· What role does the person who gets this position play in decision-making?
· Does the organization emphasize working in teams?
· What are the organization’s priorities for the next few years?
· Are there established career paths for employees in this position?

If you get a chance to meet with other employees, you can ask one or more of these questions to try and get a handle on an organization’s corporate culture:
· What 10 words would you use to describe your company?
· What’s it really like to work here? Do you like it here?
· Around here what’s is really important?
· How are employees valued around here?
· What skills and characteristics does the company value?
· Do you feel as though you know what is expected of you?
· How do people from different departments interact?
· Are there opportunities for further training and education?
· How do people get promoted around here?
· Around here what behaviors get rewarded?
· Do you feel as though you know what’s going on?
· How effectively does the company communicate to its employees?

F.W. Taylor’s scientific management (1911) is a rigorous analysis of input, output & cost aim to improve productivity by harmonize management & labor. He concerned about company’s health showed by productivity, and harmony showed by distribution of income. Although his aim is workers’ goodness, but his mechanical approach of company and worker made him see there is only ‘one best method’. It makes him enemy of the workers.

Taylor’s division of work is principal of scientific management, which leads to ergonomics, specialization and efficiency, but also leads to monotonous work & workers’ dissatisfaction since workers unable to see the end product & directly associated himself to the creation. Taylor’s one best method is a quest for Frank & Lilian Gilbert’ time & motion study. They introduce Work Cycle, Work Simplification & Systematization, and Process Flow Chart.

Elton Mayo through Hawthorne investigation found that productivity is a social phenomenon, not only technical / methodology problem. Fellowship of management & worker, cooperation & teamwork, self respect, sense of belonging, task identification & recognition are important to workers’ productivity. Further, Hawthorne study leads to the emergence of Participative Management & Leadership promoted by Robert Owen (called as 1st Enlighted Manager) & Mary Follet.

She found that Laissez-faire & Directive Management bring less productivity compared to Participative Management. Participative approach which essentially democratic, success simply because it provide what is needed in productive social environment and worker’s personality.

Ancient Greek philosophers identified 3 ideals: truth, good, and beauty. Chinese add in the 4th: abundance.

Science is dedicated to pursuit of truth, and technology to its application. Ethics and morality, to pursuit of the good, Aesthetic to beauty, and Economics to abundance.

Although management or economics mainly to pursue abundance, working without truth, good & beauty would be suffering.

Management should embrace technology, guided by ethical values, & in aesthetic way. How?

Aesthetic is related to creation & re-creation. Work should be creative to innovate something new. This could happen when company re-fresh mind, heart & body of her employees, it is promoting fun & enjoyment.

“A large part of what a good boss does is expedite things for employees – that is, help them get their jobs done by removing obstacles. This is not at all the same as ‘making sure’ they get their jobs done by raising the anxiety level. Most people are anxious enough already.” -David Sirota, head of Sirota Survey Intelligence, a research firm headquartered in Purchase, N.Y., that has surveyed millions of employees in Fortune 500 companies since its founding in 1972.

3 goals at work: fairness, achievement and camaraderie

In his book, “The Enthusiastic Employee: How Companies Profit by Giving Workers What They Want” (Wharton School Publishing), Sirota conclude from researches that people in general have 3 goals at work: fairness, achievement and camaraderie. If these 3 goals are met, you have enthusiastic employees.

What he means by fairness is employee wants to feel that they are being recognized and rewarded fairly. Achievement means that employee wants to be proud of the organization and their place in it. Camaraderie means employee wants good working relations and a sense of belonging to a team.

The trouble is that, morale among new hires is high and by about 6 month has dropped sharply. Management has destroyed it. One thing bad bosses do is to deliberately make people feel insecure about their jobs. Another is treat employees like children or criminals instead of like responsible adults.

Sign of Bad Boss

A sign of a really bad boss is micromanaging, which Sirota define as devoting punitive amount of attention to minute. Employee has to raise his hand if they want to go to restroom. Another sign is no positive feedback.
All of this behavior of bad boss derived from a combination of an over positive self concept with theory X which see others always negative.

Why should companies care whether employees are enthusiastic or not, as long as the work gets done?

Many research evident show a direct link between employee morale and the overall performance of the firm, including stock price. The correlation is a result of how employees treated is reflected to how employees treat customers.

Since most bosses, including the bad one, always think they are doing the right thing thus management should always 360-degree evaluation to have constructive critics and an open dialogue to make sure people giving an honest feedback.

[1] Suspect flattery. Sincere compliments from a coworker or a boss are nice, but outrageous flattery is often an attempt to draw you into a psychopath’s snare. If you feel your ego is being massaged, you may be dealing with a psychopath. Be careful.

[2] Take labels and titles with a grain of salt. Just because someone is older, has a higher position or more degrees, or is wealthier than you are does not mean his or her moral judgment is better than yours.

[3] Always question authority when it conflicts with your own sense of right and wrong. This may be hard to do, but it is crucial to your own career and well-being.

[4] Never agree to help a psychopath conceal his or her suspicious activities at work.

[5] If you are afraid of your boss, never confuse this feeling with respect.

[6] Realistically assess the damage to your life. If it’s too great, you may have to leave.

Remember that living well is the best revenge.
source: http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/96/open_boss-fasttake.html

The standard clinical test for psychopathy, Robert Hare’s PCL-R, evaluates 20 personality traits overall, but a subset of eight traits defines what he calls the “corporate psychopath” — the nonviolent person prone to the “selfish, callous, and remorseless use of others.” Does your boss fit the profile? Here’s our do-it-yourself quiz drawing on the test manual and Hare’s book Without Conscience.

For each question, score two points for “yes,” one point for “somewhat” or “maybe,” and zero points for “no.”

[1] Is he glib and superficially charming?
Is he a likable personality and a terrific talker — entertaining, persuasive, but maybe a bit too smooth and slick? Can he pass himself off as a supposed expert in a business meeting even though he really doesn’t know much about the topic? Is he a flatterer? Seductive, but insincere? Does he tell amusing but unlikely anecdotes celebrating his own past? Can he persuade his colleagues to support a certain position this week — and then argue with equal conviction and persuasiveness for the opposite position next week? If he’s a CEO, can he appear on TV and somehow get away without answering the interviewer’s direct questions or saying anything truly substantive?
SCORE__

[2] Does he have a grandiose sense of self-worth?
Does he brag? Is he arrogant? Superior? Domineering? Does he feel he’s above the rules that apply to “little people”? Does he act as though everything revolves around him? Does he downplay his legal, financial, or personal problems, say they’re just temporary, or blame them on others?
SCORE__

[3] Is he a pathological liar?
Has he reinvented his own past in a more positive light — for example, claiming that he rose from a tough, poor background even though he really grew up middle class? Does he lie habitually even though he can easily be found out? When he’s exposed, does he still act unconcerned because he thinks he can weasel out of it? Does he enjoy lying? Is he proud of his knack for deceit? Is it hard to tell whether he knows he’s a liar or whether he deceives himself and believes his own bull?
SCORE__

[4] Is he a con artist or master manipulator?
Does he use his skill at lying to cheat or manipulate other people in his quest for money, power, status, and sex? Does he “use” people brilliantly? Does he engage in dishonest schemes such as cooking the books?
SCORE__

[5] When he harms other people, does he feel a lack of remorse or guilt?
Is he concerned about himself rather than the wreckage he inflicts on others or society at large? Does he say he feels bad but act as though he really doesn’t? Even if he has been convicted of a white-collar crime, such as securities fraud, does he not accept blame for what he did, even after getting out of prison? Does he blame others for the trouble he causes?
SCORE__

[6] Does he have a shallow affect?
Is he cold and detached, even when someone near him dies, suffers, or falls seriously ill — for example, does he visit the hospital or attend the funeral? Does he make brief, dramatic displays of emotion that are nothing more than putting on a theatrical mask and playacting for effect? Does he claim to be your friend but rarely or never ask about the details of your life or your emotional state? Is he one of those tough-guy executives who brag about how emotions are for whiners and losers?
SCORE__

[7] Is he callous and lacking in empathy?
Does he not give a damn about the feelings or well-being of other people? Is he profoundly selfish? Does he cruelly mock others? Is he emotionally or verbally abusive toward employees, “friends,” and family members? Can he fire employees without concern for how they’ll get by without the job? Can he profit from embezzlement or stock fraud without concern for the harm he’s doing to shareholders or pensioners who need their savings to pay for their retirements?
SCORE__

[8] Does he fail to accept responsibility for his own actions?
Does he always cook up some excuse? Does he blame others for what he’s done? If he’s under investigation or on trial for a corporate crime, like deceitful accounting or stock fraud, does he refuse to acknowledge wrongdoing even when the hard evidence is stacked against him?
SCORE__

Total____

If your boss scores:
1-4 Be frustrated
5-7 Be cautious
8-12 Be afraid
13-16 Be very afraid

source: http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/96/open_boss-quiz.html

While talking about communication, usually we focus on the message, media, and noise.
In traditional command-and-control paradigm where authocratic leadership style is considered the best prescription, communication means flow of information from the top to the bottom to ensure orders are understood and implemented. In a cut-throat competitive environment, where decision should be make on the spot where problem happened, firm needs to leverage people’s mind (creativity, knowledge, etc) and their heart (commitment, passion) then command-and-control paradigm is no more appropriate. More democratic approach such as participation and delegation are considered more productive, then communication role is also changed.

Communication: from giving order to aligning mind and heart
In command-and-control environment, Leader’s objective is to make sure order is understood and implemented as is. Thus when employees do not agreed or in a doubtful, then Leader make a discussion to ‘enforce’ management idea, to provide reason and evident that management’s idea and decision are correct thus must be conducted.
In more participative environment, Leader wants gather people idea and make a commitment of vision, mission, goal and strategy. In this environment Leader make a dialogue to gather new idea and understand employees position, then make a commitment which accommodate every side of position into a vision, mission, goal and strategy. The aim of dialogue is not to define which idea is better but to gather more idea, to get understanding why other people have different point of view and what are their feelings. So Leader is not communicate in mind level but more on heart level.
Thus when Leader wants employees to have sense of belonging, participation and commitment then communication in term of securing flow of right information definitely is not enough. People will not follows someone who is right, but will follow someone who is care about them.

To make a dialogue, Leader must position himself in the same level with employees,.. and without prejudice.

People tend to attracted to the one with similar or stronger personality.
The one with extrovert personality will certainly attracted to the one which is talkative, enthusiastic to human interaction, assertive, and gregarious. The uniqueness is that people tend to be attracted, even fall in love to the one who has stronger personality. This phenomenon realy happened and reflected in Stockholm Syndrome.

The story of Stockholm Syndrome
There was a unique story in the summer 1973 when four hostages were taken in a bank robbery at Kreditbanken in Stockholm, Sweden. Six day later, at the end of their captivity – the hostage refused to testify against their captors, raised money for their legal defense, and according to some reports one of the hostages eventually became engaged to one of her jailed captors.
Similar situation also happened in the case of Patty Hearst, who after being kidnapped and tortured by the Symbionese Liberation Army, took up arms and joined their cause, taking on the nom de guerre of “Tania” and helping the SLA rob banks.

“They weren’t bad people. They let me eat, they let me sleep, they gave me my life”
— A hostage from Flight 847

Why this case happened?
Stockholm syndrome is an example how weaker people (hostage, employee, student, etc.) for the sake of survival, try to keep captors (robber, boss, teacher, etc.) happy, further they tend to identify themself to the captor which result in sympathizing the captors instead!! In an isolated and death threatened condition, this syndrome typically takes about three or four days for the psychological shift to take hold.
So we can understand why battered spouse, member of religious cult, junior (remember the case of STPDN case in Sumedang, West Java) even household pets are attracted, sympathize and defend the captors.
Weak people tend to love stronger one, as we choose healtier pet… so does in personality. People who have strong personality will attract people’ heart and mind.

Leader as Great Intimidator
Ideally Leaders are considered successful when they have good attributes, and deliver business result. In contrary, many famous leaders deliver result in term of sales, revenue, profit and efficiency but do NOT considered as good people. They tend to intimidate employees and focus merely on productivity (transactional leader) – but they are adored. Employees are actually kept in the company due to difficulty in finding next jobs, while everyday they are tortured emotionally by the boss. Certainly in this case also, Stockholm Syndrome will happen,… and this certainly will unless employees have guts and not depend on the company in term of income, and self identification and meaning.

Micromanagement is a management style where manager closely observes or controls every steps of the work of employees. This style arise from manager himself who 1) concerns for details, 2) want to increase performance pressure, 3) wants to spread insecurity to eliminate unwanted employees, 4) seen employees as incompetence or can not be trusted, or 5) to securing his position because the low ratio of boss and workers.

In modern organization tendency to concentrate power in the hand of single person is unproductive, thus excessive control over employees as happened in micromanagement is left aside. In contrary, modern management delegates power to make decision to the frontline who face customer and problem to increase customer and employee satisfaction, as long as the firm recruit the employees with the right atitude and capability (known as adult employee in HR literature).

In real world, control is still important because not all employees are adult (although management all employees as adult). In this condition, manager need to give detail instruction (telling style), and giving pressure for higher performance. By these 2 motives manager MUST hands-on to the work of employees. Management style arise from these motives is known as hands-on management. Contrary to micromanagement, hands-on management is arise because of job context, while micromanagement as stated earlier more often arise from manager himself who have personal trait to concern for detail, personal agenda (pressure for higher performance, eliminate employees or to securing his position), or negative attitude toward employees (seen employees as incompetence or can not be trusted)

Although micromanagement and hands-on management are based on control paradigm, but in hands-on management, control is needed to serve interest of the firm, management and employees – not merely to serve the concern of the boss. That’s why micromanagement has negative conotation, and damage trust, commitment and loyalty which at the end will damage human productivity.

Bisnis adalah suatu peperangan, dan dalam peperangan selalu dibutuhkan prajurit yang berdedikasi (mau) dan memiliki kemampuan. Masalahnya bagaimana bila strategi berperang/ berkompetisi berubah, persaingan berubah, atau alasan lainnya sehingga jenis karyawan yang sudah direkrut tidak sesuai lagi dengan kebutuhan?

Bagaimana dalam dunia bisnis?
Alternatif pertama yang paling kasar adalah menempatkan karyawan dalam posisi atau pekerjaan dimana spec-nya tidak cocok dengan kualifikasi karyawan sehingga karyawan berkinerja tidak sesuai harapan dan dapat dikeluarkan dengan status tidak cakap bekerja. Di Indonesia praktek ini hanya dimungkinkan bagi karyawan di bawah 40th, selebihnya pemerintah mencegatnya dalam bentuk Undang Undang Ketenagakerjaan meskipun mutasi bebas masih dapat dijalankan seenaknya oleh perusahaan, artinya perusahaan bebas memutasikan karyawan tanpa assement, pelatihan ulang dan masa percobaan serta jaminan ketersediaan posisi semula bila karyawan yang dimutasikan ternyata tidak sesuai dengan job spec yang dibutuhkan. Keputusan ini sering dilakukan oleh perusahaan perseorangan, perusahaan tertutup/ keluarga. Perusahaan publik yang dewasa ini mengarah ke sana adalah BCA sebab terjadinya agency problem. Manager menyelamatkan jabatan dan gajinya yang besar dengan mengurangi karyawan dan membebankan target tidak masuk akal. Dalam dunia militer ini sama dengan menempatkan prajurit infanteri darat dalam posisi awak kapal.
Alternatif kedua, adalah melaksanakan PHK dengan ucapan terimakasih (dalam bentuk golden shakehand) begitu spec karyawan tidak sesuai dengan job spec yang baru. Keputusan ini pernah diambil oleh Astra Graphia, dimana seorang karyawan dinilai tidak cocok dan tidak dibutuhkan sehingga menerima PHK beserta pesangonnya, namun kemudian ternyata dapat masuk kembali ke lingkungan Astra di perusahaan atau departemen lainnya. Jelas hal ini suatu kebodohan karena lemahnya koordinasi dan ketertutupan informasi kebutuhan tenaga kerja dalam satu lingkungan kerja (meskipun beda PT). PHK sudah diatur pemerintah, namun ucapan terimakasih biasanya dalam bargaining perusahaan sebab aturan pemerintah tidak mempertimbangkan sulitnya mencari pekerjaan kembali. Dalam dunia militer ini sama dengan memensiunkan prajurit dengan ucapan terimakasih (biasanya berupa rumah dan tanah dalam budaya Jepang dan Eropa) dan mengembalikan statusnya sebagai civilian.
Alternatif ketiga, adalah redeployment. Redeployment dilakukan dengan mapping seluruh kebutuhan perusahaan, mulai dari job analysis sampai menghasilkan job specification dan job description. Kemudian perusahaan menginformasikan semua posisi dan persyaratannya, serta mapping karyawan mana saja yang dipertahankan, alias memiliki job spec-nya cocok dengan kualifikasi karyawan. Sisa karyawan lainnya dapat re-apply pekerjaan yang belum terisi. Lebih manusiawi dan mudah bukan? Namun kenyataannya sulit dilakukan sebab: ketertutupan informasi, pride atasan untuk tidak mau dianggap gagal, atau kurangnya kemampuan HR yang memang harus diakui di Indonesia lebih sebagai policy maker dan polisi kebijakan ata sikapnya yang tidak menempatkan diri sebagai employee champion (dalam istilah Dave Ulrich). Di Indonesia keputusan ini pernah diambil Danamon, yang menurut berbagai survey kualitas HR-nya belumlah yang terbaik. (NB: penulis tidak bekerja di Danamon). Redeployment lucunya tidak disarankan secara eksplisit oleh pemerintah, bukti lain lagi bahwa kebijakan publik terpisah-pisah dari satu kementerian dengan kementerian lainnya. Dalam dunia militer ini sama dengan perombakan yang digabungkan dengan tour of duty.

Mengapa beberapa perusahaan mengambil keputusan yang tidak humanis?
Perusahaan adalah konsep abstrak, nyatanya yang mengambil keputusan seringkali adalah manajer perusahaan yang sama-sama orang gajian dan yang sama-sama ketakutan dan memiliki egonya sendiri. So kembali lagi kepada value dan etika leader…
Etis adalah ketika keputusan atau perbuatan hanya memperhatikan diri sendiri, inilah esensi melayani orang lain (Autocratic VS Servant Leadership).