For most people, taking a vacation is a relaxing, stress-free period that never quite lasts long enough (unless you're one of those people that has to check in with the office during vacation - often called a "working vacation" or "hell"). Whether it's an extra long weekend, a full week, or even two weeks, a vacation is something that you look forward to, especially if it's been a long time since your last one.
But there is one downside to a vacation (more than one if it's a working vacation, but in this case, we'll assume it's work-free). The downside is the last day of your vacation.
The last day of your vacation means the last day of sleeping in, the last day of goofing off, or the last day of doing absolutely nothing and getting paid for it. The last day of your vacation usually goes by the quickest too. But worst of all, the last day of vacation brings thoughts of your first day back at work.
For some people, the first day back at work is no different from any other day. People who work in restaurants, people who deliver newspapers, people who work in a mall kiosk - these people will likely return to work after a vacation and it will be like they never left because someone else filled in for them. All the work gets done and the next day the work begins anew.
However, people who work in offices know a different story. While most people have someone who covers their desk while they're away, the person doing the coverage is most likely handling emergencies and that's it. So any routine, day-to-day paperwork might start to pile up (this is because the person covering your desk is also covering their own desk, and maybe even the desk of someone else who is on vacation or out sick). As a result, you usually come back from vacation into a backlog of work, in addition to the normal work that makes its way to your desk during the day.
The worst part is, as an office worker, you KNOW that this is going to happen, which is what can really put a damper on the last day of your vacation. And there's nothing anyone can do about it - in today's high volume, high stress, results oriented world, there's only so much a person can do to cover your desk AND get all of their work done in a matter that is satisfactory to management. Covering your desk is no prize for your co-workers, because they know that management is going to want to see results regardless of how many people were out of the office that week.
So while vacation is a much-needed break that most of us have earned with all of our hard work, the thought of coming back to a pile of paperwork three feet high can be enough to make those last few hours of vacation less than enjoyable. It's enough to make you want to call out sick the next day, if only to postpone the inevitable for another 24 hours. Actually, that sounds like a pretty good idea... (cough, cough)
Do you have any post-vacation horror stories? Do you work in a place where this type of scenario usually happens? Or is your place of employment the kind where you never have to stress about coming back from vacation? Share your stories with us by leaving a comment.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Customers
Last time, we discussed how co-workers can sometimes be just as guilty as management when it comes to squashing employee morale. Today, we're going to tackle a third group of people that can be just as bad - customers.
Let me start out by saying that yes, I realize the irony of including customers in this discussion, considering that without customers, most of us would be jobless. However, that doesn't mean that they can't be a royal pain, and a drain on your happiness.
Most, if not all, of you work in a profession that deals with customers, either directly or indirectly. Maybe you work in a restaurant, or a clothing store, or maybe you sell cars, or work in a doctor's office, or maybe you're on tv. In one form or another, you deal with customers every day. Some of them are nice, personable, friendly people. Unfortunately, it seems like more and more these days, those kinds of people are few and far between.
Instead, you get to deal with people who think it's their god given right to treat you like crap. If you've ever been a waiter or waitress, you've surely dealt with the person who sends back the food you've brought them, even if it was prepared exactly as they had asked, and they aren't always very polite about it. If you've worked in the mall, you've dealt with the person who thinks it's your fault that this year's "must have" toy is sold out two days before Christmas and can't believe you'd deny their child the right to have that toy. If you've worked in a call center, you've no doubt had the caller from hell who refuses to listen to anything you have to say, and then asks to speak to your manager and proceeds to tell your manager that you refused to tell her what she wanted to hear. (I've had someone tell me this story once - she had someone on the phone telling her "You're not telling me what I want to hear!" Sorry lady, but if what we're telling you is not what you want to hear, you're just out of luck)
The best is when customers get verbally abusive with you. Usually this happens to people who answer phone calls or emails, because it takes more guts to actually yell at someone in person than to yell at someone over the phone. Occasionally though, you'll get that special someone who, for whatever reason, gets it in their head that the best way to get what they want is to physically threaten someone. Fortunately, this is usually a rare occurrence, but I have known people who have had this happen to them. I've also had someone tell me that they've received a death threat from someone over the phone (fortunately, an empty threat, the person is still with us).
It doesn't have to be a life or death situation for a customer encounter to ruin your day. Sometimes, what starts out as a pleasant conversation turns ugly, and a customer says something like "Get me someone who knows what he's doing," and suddenly you're in a sour mood for the rest of the afternoon. Sometimes it only takes one bad customer to make you ugly, and then you inadvertently take it out on other customers or your co-workers, even if they don't deserve it.
Of course, you can't respond the way you'd like to respond, because "The customer is always right." These five words have done more harm to people who work in customer service than anything else I can think of. Whoever thought of this line didn't realize the repercussions that would be felt for many years to come. It gave customers (many of whom are morons, like the rest of us) the feeling that no matter how ridiculous their claim is, they are "right" and should get their way, no matter what. It is this kind of thinking that has caused so many people to resent customers, often times unfairly. Not all customers are bad, but the bad apples cast a large shadow over the good ones, sometimes making it hard to distinguish between the two.
So what are your thoughts? Are customers just as bad as co-workers when it comes to harming employee morale? Does either group compare to management? Have any bad customer stories you'd like to share? Post a comment and let us know.
Let me start out by saying that yes, I realize the irony of including customers in this discussion, considering that without customers, most of us would be jobless. However, that doesn't mean that they can't be a royal pain, and a drain on your happiness.
Most, if not all, of you work in a profession that deals with customers, either directly or indirectly. Maybe you work in a restaurant, or a clothing store, or maybe you sell cars, or work in a doctor's office, or maybe you're on tv. In one form or another, you deal with customers every day. Some of them are nice, personable, friendly people. Unfortunately, it seems like more and more these days, those kinds of people are few and far between.
Instead, you get to deal with people who think it's their god given right to treat you like crap. If you've ever been a waiter or waitress, you've surely dealt with the person who sends back the food you've brought them, even if it was prepared exactly as they had asked, and they aren't always very polite about it. If you've worked in the mall, you've dealt with the person who thinks it's your fault that this year's "must have" toy is sold out two days before Christmas and can't believe you'd deny their child the right to have that toy. If you've worked in a call center, you've no doubt had the caller from hell who refuses to listen to anything you have to say, and then asks to speak to your manager and proceeds to tell your manager that you refused to tell her what she wanted to hear. (I've had someone tell me this story once - she had someone on the phone telling her "You're not telling me what I want to hear!" Sorry lady, but if what we're telling you is not what you want to hear, you're just out of luck)
The best is when customers get verbally abusive with you. Usually this happens to people who answer phone calls or emails, because it takes more guts to actually yell at someone in person than to yell at someone over the phone. Occasionally though, you'll get that special someone who, for whatever reason, gets it in their head that the best way to get what they want is to physically threaten someone. Fortunately, this is usually a rare occurrence, but I have known people who have had this happen to them. I've also had someone tell me that they've received a death threat from someone over the phone (fortunately, an empty threat, the person is still with us).
It doesn't have to be a life or death situation for a customer encounter to ruin your day. Sometimes, what starts out as a pleasant conversation turns ugly, and a customer says something like "Get me someone who knows what he's doing," and suddenly you're in a sour mood for the rest of the afternoon. Sometimes it only takes one bad customer to make you ugly, and then you inadvertently take it out on other customers or your co-workers, even if they don't deserve it.
Of course, you can't respond the way you'd like to respond, because "The customer is always right." These five words have done more harm to people who work in customer service than anything else I can think of. Whoever thought of this line didn't realize the repercussions that would be felt for many years to come. It gave customers (many of whom are morons, like the rest of us) the feeling that no matter how ridiculous their claim is, they are "right" and should get their way, no matter what. It is this kind of thinking that has caused so many people to resent customers, often times unfairly. Not all customers are bad, but the bad apples cast a large shadow over the good ones, sometimes making it hard to distinguish between the two.
So what are your thoughts? Are customers just as bad as co-workers when it comes to harming employee morale? Does either group compare to management? Have any bad customer stories you'd like to share? Post a comment and let us know.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Co-Workers
So far on this site, we've discussed ways that employers can ruin employee morale. But let's be honest - your managers, try as they might, aren't the only ones who can make you feel like you're serving a jail sentence instead of punching a clock. Your co-workers, while well-intentioned, can also be a drain on your happiness (as well as your sanity).
No matter where you work, no matter what kind of job you do, I guarantee you have a co-worker that drives you nuts. And it's not like they do it on purpose (at least, hopefully they're not doing it on purpose). It's just the way they are.
There are lots of different types of annoying, morale-draining co-workers. We'll discuss a few of them here (feel free to leave a comment if you've got other examples from your job).
- The Guy That Won't Shut Up: This guy (or gal) will stop by the office with nothing to say, yet will find a way to keep talking to you for half an hour. Naturally, this normally happens when you are trying to get a big project done, or preparing for a meeting with the boss. The conversation may start with a work-related topic, but quickly jumps to last night's game, or a movie he just saw, or better yet, his kids. And none of the "this conversation is over" clues that you're dropping are working (you know, things like turning your back to the person and going back to work, or only responding with "yeah" and "uh huh" and not engaging in any real conversation, or faking a seizure). Your only hope is for your telephone to ring so that you have an excuse to escape this dead end discussion.
- The Annoying Pregnant Lady: (This one obviously doesn't apply to everyone who is pregnant) No offense if you're pregnant, it's one of the most beautiful and life-altering experiences in the world. But that doesn't mean we need to hear all the sordid details about how your little bundle-of-joy-to-be is kicking your bladder so hard that you have to pee every hour. Nor do we need to know about the rash you have and how itchy it is. And yes, we understand that you've put on weight - we get it, you're pregnant. And no, we don't want to look at baby names with you on the internet.
- The Fake Punch Guy: You know who I'm talking about. The guy who, instead of just saying hi in the hallway or shaking hands if the occasion calls for it, feels compelled to have a fake sparring session with you in the middle of the office. And what are you supposed to do, just stand there and not react? No, like a fool, you pretend to think it's funny and throw a fake jab or two back his way (although maybe you come a little closer to his chin than you intended - purely a coincidence). Then you walk away hating yourself for the rest of the morning.
- The Lady Who Loves (insert tv show here) And Won't Shut Up About It: This ties in a little bit with The Guy That Won't Shut Up, but this woman is only interested in her show. Maybe it's Oprah, maybe it's Survivor, maybe it's Knight Rider 2000 - whatever it is, she wants to talk to you about it, regardless of whether or not you've seen the show. To her, this show is the greatest thing that television has ever produced, and you're going to know everything about the show whether you want to or not. And telling her that you don't watch the show doesn't help; if anything, it further aggravates the problem because now she feels like she has to catch you up on everything that's happened. Your ideal way out of this problem is to walk this woman over to The Guy That Won't Shut Up and get them talking to each other. That should free you up for at least a couple of hours.
There are many, many other examples of soul-draining co-workers out there, and not enough space in this column to discuss them all. That's where you come in. If you have, or once had, a morale-reducing co-worker, tell us about him/her (please remember to keep this anonymous - don't use more than a first name). Let's see who works with the best of the worst.
So remember, although your boss may be the prime culprit, it's not just management that can have a negative effect on employee morale.
No matter where you work, no matter what kind of job you do, I guarantee you have a co-worker that drives you nuts. And it's not like they do it on purpose (at least, hopefully they're not doing it on purpose). It's just the way they are.
There are lots of different types of annoying, morale-draining co-workers. We'll discuss a few of them here (feel free to leave a comment if you've got other examples from your job).
- The Guy That Won't Shut Up: This guy (or gal) will stop by the office with nothing to say, yet will find a way to keep talking to you for half an hour. Naturally, this normally happens when you are trying to get a big project done, or preparing for a meeting with the boss. The conversation may start with a work-related topic, but quickly jumps to last night's game, or a movie he just saw, or better yet, his kids. And none of the "this conversation is over" clues that you're dropping are working (you know, things like turning your back to the person and going back to work, or only responding with "yeah" and "uh huh" and not engaging in any real conversation, or faking a seizure). Your only hope is for your telephone to ring so that you have an excuse to escape this dead end discussion.
- The Annoying Pregnant Lady: (This one obviously doesn't apply to everyone who is pregnant) No offense if you're pregnant, it's one of the most beautiful and life-altering experiences in the world. But that doesn't mean we need to hear all the sordid details about how your little bundle-of-joy-to-be is kicking your bladder so hard that you have to pee every hour. Nor do we need to know about the rash you have and how itchy it is. And yes, we understand that you've put on weight - we get it, you're pregnant. And no, we don't want to look at baby names with you on the internet.
- The Fake Punch Guy: You know who I'm talking about. The guy who, instead of just saying hi in the hallway or shaking hands if the occasion calls for it, feels compelled to have a fake sparring session with you in the middle of the office. And what are you supposed to do, just stand there and not react? No, like a fool, you pretend to think it's funny and throw a fake jab or two back his way (although maybe you come a little closer to his chin than you intended - purely a coincidence). Then you walk away hating yourself for the rest of the morning.
- The Lady Who Loves (insert tv show here) And Won't Shut Up About It: This ties in a little bit with The Guy That Won't Shut Up, but this woman is only interested in her show. Maybe it's Oprah, maybe it's Survivor, maybe it's Knight Rider 2000 - whatever it is, she wants to talk to you about it, regardless of whether or not you've seen the show. To her, this show is the greatest thing that television has ever produced, and you're going to know everything about the show whether you want to or not. And telling her that you don't watch the show doesn't help; if anything, it further aggravates the problem because now she feels like she has to catch you up on everything that's happened. Your ideal way out of this problem is to walk this woman over to The Guy That Won't Shut Up and get them talking to each other. That should free you up for at least a couple of hours.
There are many, many other examples of soul-draining co-workers out there, and not enough space in this column to discuss them all. That's where you come in. If you have, or once had, a morale-reducing co-worker, tell us about him/her (please remember to keep this anonymous - don't use more than a first name). Let's see who works with the best of the worst.
So remember, although your boss may be the prime culprit, it's not just management that can have a negative effect on employee morale.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Communication
One of the keys to success for any business, large or small, is effective and timely communication between management and employees. Naturally, this almost never happens.
One of the biggest problems in the workforce today is the lack of communication within a company. This is one of the biggest morale killers employees face. But why does lack of communication have such a negative effect on employee morale?
Let's answer this question by giving some hypothetical examples of poor or non-existent communication. Feel free to adjust these examples to fit your work situation.
Hypothetical Example # 1:
One of the biggest problems in the workforce today is the lack of communication within a company. This is one of the biggest morale killers employees face. But why does lack of communication have such a negative effect on employee morale?
Let's answer this question by giving some hypothetical examples of poor or non-existent communication. Feel free to adjust these examples to fit your work situation.
Hypothetical Example # 1:
Your boss assigns you an important project. Your job is to make sure that project is done on time and accurately. The goal of the project is to organize all of your team's files into different categories, and then to rank those categories from highest priority to lowest priority based on which ones are in need of immediate action. You spend days, if not weeks, working on this project. You get input from all members of your team to try to assess which ones should be considered high priority. After many hours of hard work, you get an email from your boss asking for a progress report. After filling him in on what you're doing, your boss tells you that the project has changed and you were supposed to arrange these files based on their net value, not whether or not they need immediate action. You wasted days worth of work on a project that was doomed from the start. To top it off, your boss says he sent you an email detailing the change - you check your email and there never was a note sent to you.
Hypothetical Example # 2:
Most days, dress attire is "business casual." However, today you're walking around the office and you see one guy wearing a Red Sox hat and someone else sporting a New York Giants football jersey. You ask them why they're wearing these things, and they tell you that today was designated as a "dress down" day. The only problem - your manager never told you about this, so you're the only one in the office wearing a button-up shirt and Dockers on an 80 degree day. Then you notice that your boss is wearing a Yankees hat, which makes sense because he is an idiot and it doesn't surprise you that he would root for a team that is evil.
Hypothetical Example # 3:
It's after lunch and there's a blizzard blowing through, making driving very difficult and ensuring that you have a good three feet of snow to shovel out of your driveway when you get home. Slowly, word starts to spread into your department that other departments are being released early. You have friends in these other departments, so you send a quick email to see if it's true. You find out that not only is it true, they got an email from their manager releasing them at 2 pm. You look up at the clock and it reads 1:45 pm and you've heard absolutely nothing from any manager in your department. You sit at your desk, hating both your manager for holding your fate in limbo and your friends for knowing that they're minutes away from heading home.
In all three of these hypothetical examples, you can see why the employee would be pissed that they're not in the loop. The employee either is finding out important things from other co-workers or not finding out at all. How would you feel if this happened to you? Has this happened to you? I don't know about you, but when I feel like management doesn't care about me (and by not communicating effectively, that's the signal that's sent), I wonder why I should care about doing anything to help management. It has to be a two-way street, and it's no fun driving down a one-way road in the wrong direction.
There are many other examples out there, but I don't want to steal all the thunder. Let's hear your examples of poor communication at the workplace. Share your stories with us by posting a comment.
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
Micromanaging
If you were to ask 100 different employees to describe their boss using just one word, most of them would answer "evil-spawn-of-Satan" (apparently using dashes makes this a "one word" answer). Those who don't use dashes would probably answer with the word "micromanager."
Look up "micromanager" in any dictionary and you'll find that it means "short manager" or "leader of tiny stature." However, others use this word to describe a boss who not only tells you what to do, but tells you how to do it, when to do it, and why you're doing it wrong.
To many employees, the micromanager is the worst type of boss. People can deal with the boss who takes credit for the team's success, the boss who is never there when you need him, and even the boss who shows up after you and leaves before you. But for most people, there is nothing worse than a micromanager.
Does this situation sound familiar? Your boss gives you an assignment. He wants you to produce the XYZ report for the Big Boss by the end of the day. He gives you instructions on how to get started. As you're starting the first step, your boss (who is still hovering over your shoulder) points out that it might be better to actually skip ahead to the next step because it's easier, even though you know that without doing step one, step two will be three times as hard and take much longer. You finally convince your boss to go bug someone else, only to find him back in your cube half an hour later for a "status update" - as if you'd finish the task and forget to tell him. He then proceeds to look over everything you've done so far and recommends changes to most of what you've done. Worst of all, you've done everything right so far and his recommendations will do more harm than good. When you try to explain this to him, he tells you that he's done this "a million times" and his method is the best way. And when you finally finish the report and it's delivered to the Big Boss, guess who gets the credit? (Hint: It's not you.)
It's a no-win situation. If you listen to your boss, you'll be rewarded with a more difficult and time consuming process, with the added bonus of spending most of your day with him. But you can't just tell your boss to back the hell off and let you do your job. Nor can you say "If you know the best way to do this, why did you bother coming to me?" Well, you could say those things, but you better make sure your resume is up to date.
So what's the best way to deal with a micromanager? There's no easy way to do it, at least not that I know of. Outside of switching jobs or winning the lottery, there probably isn't much you can do. You could try to prove a point to your boss by micromanaging him - stand behind him while he updates his voice mail and tell him to use his "boss voice" because it sounds more authoritative. It has to be something ridiculous and annoying like that because you're trying to prove a point, although there's a good chance that your boss will completely miss the point.
Have you worked for a micromanager, or do you work for one now? How do you handle it? Share your stories and your suggestions on how to deal with them.
Look up "micromanager" in any dictionary and you'll find that it means "short manager" or "leader of tiny stature." However, others use this word to describe a boss who not only tells you what to do, but tells you how to do it, when to do it, and why you're doing it wrong.
To many employees, the micromanager is the worst type of boss. People can deal with the boss who takes credit for the team's success, the boss who is never there when you need him, and even the boss who shows up after you and leaves before you. But for most people, there is nothing worse than a micromanager.
Does this situation sound familiar? Your boss gives you an assignment. He wants you to produce the XYZ report for the Big Boss by the end of the day. He gives you instructions on how to get started. As you're starting the first step, your boss (who is still hovering over your shoulder) points out that it might be better to actually skip ahead to the next step because it's easier, even though you know that without doing step one, step two will be three times as hard and take much longer. You finally convince your boss to go bug someone else, only to find him back in your cube half an hour later for a "status update" - as if you'd finish the task and forget to tell him. He then proceeds to look over everything you've done so far and recommends changes to most of what you've done. Worst of all, you've done everything right so far and his recommendations will do more harm than good. When you try to explain this to him, he tells you that he's done this "a million times" and his method is the best way. And when you finally finish the report and it's delivered to the Big Boss, guess who gets the credit? (Hint: It's not you.)
It's a no-win situation. If you listen to your boss, you'll be rewarded with a more difficult and time consuming process, with the added bonus of spending most of your day with him. But you can't just tell your boss to back the hell off and let you do your job. Nor can you say "If you know the best way to do this, why did you bother coming to me?" Well, you could say those things, but you better make sure your resume is up to date.
So what's the best way to deal with a micromanager? There's no easy way to do it, at least not that I know of. Outside of switching jobs or winning the lottery, there probably isn't much you can do. You could try to prove a point to your boss by micromanaging him - stand behind him while he updates his voice mail and tell him to use his "boss voice" because it sounds more authoritative. It has to be something ridiculous and annoying like that because you're trying to prove a point, although there's a good chance that your boss will completely miss the point.
Have you worked for a micromanager, or do you work for one now? How do you handle it? Share your stories and your suggestions on how to deal with them.
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Reviews
In an effort to keep salaries down, most companies perform official reviews of their employees. These reviews may come each quarter, twice a year, or annually, but no matter where you work there's a good chance you will be reviewed. So how does this affect employee morale? Let's take a look.
Most people's raises are tied directly to their review. The better your review, the better your chance of getting a raise. If you get a poor review, you have a pretty good chance of spending your time at work searching for a new job on the internet. So it comes as no surprise that review time can be quite stressful for many people. For some people, a review can make or break their career - one bad review at the wrong time and you could wind up stuck in the same job (at the same pay) for the foreseeable future. However, a good review at the right time could propel you into a whole new world of possibilities, with doors opening before you that you wouldn't have imagined possible just a short while ago. Or at the very least, you could get a 3% raise.
So with so much riding on these reviews, it's no wonder that people spend a lot of time worrying about them. What will your boss say about you? About the quality of work you do? Will your boss say you are a "hard worker" or are there "opportunities for improvement?" Are you a "model employee whose characteristics are such that all other employees should strive to be like you" or are you "a devious, lazy sloth who has, on no fewer than three occasions, been caught stealing office supplies?" By the way, that last one will probably get you no more than a 1% raise, so try to not be that one.
Sometimes, in order to crank up the tension, companies will include peer evaluations as part of the review process. That's right, your co-workers opinions will have a direct impact on how much of a raise (if any) you get. On the surface, this may not sound all that bad, especially if you are friends with the people you work with. But dig a little deeper, and you'll see why this could be a disaster.
First of all, this would only be a benefit to you if you get to pick the people who do the review. If you get to pick your close friends, and reach a "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" agreement, this is not a problem. However, if your manager gets to pick the reviewers, there's a decent chance that your manager will pick people who are not your friend and will be more objective. Worse case scenario, your manager (maybe knowingly, maybe not) picks someone that doesn't like you, or has an axe to grind with you. Suddenly, you're forced to either kiss up to this person, or accept the fact that your review will be filled with comments like "Needs to improve: personal hygiene." Your only hope is that you are selected to review this person as well, resulting in a stalemate. Remember "MAD" from the Cold War? Mutually Assured Destruction. It's what kept the USA and USSR from launching nukes at each other. The same principle will keep you and your co-worker from lobbing bombs at each other in your reviews.
Some companies take the torture one step further. As part of the evaluation process, you have to evaluate yourself. While this may seem like a slam dunk in your favor, it isn't necessarily the blessing it appears to be.
While you do have the opportunity to lavish ridiculous amounts of undeserved praise upon yourself, keep in mind that this portion of review will be taken with a boulder-sized grain of salt. As foolish as we like to think management is, management is smart enough to know that you're going to pat yourself on the back a little more than anyone else would. While saying that you "saved the company $1.4 million dollars while simultaneously streamlining the work process of your entire division" may sound good, there's a decent chance that your manager will at least question you about it. On the bright side, no manager expects you to be completely honest, so you can get away with one or two white lies, like "consistently shows up on time" and "is willing to help others with their work whenever possible."
The biggest downside to the self-evaluation is the part that asks you to describe "opportunities for improvement" - in other words, what don't you do well enough that will justify your small raise. Not only are they picking on your weak points (in the unlikely event you have any), but they're making you do it for them. Then they can come back and say that "we would've liked to have given you a bigger raise, but as you pointed out, you need to improve on..." and at that point, whatever words come next don't really matter. The key to try to avoid this pitfall is to pick things that are easy to improve on, or things that aren't important, or things you already do well (so that when your next review comes along, you can brag about how much you "improved" in this area). Examples of these might be taking better notes during meetings, working better with others, and no longer selling trade secrets to your competitors.
If you're lucky, you only have to go through this process once a year, and hopefully you're now a little better prepared to tackle your next review. Got any review advice of your own? Any review horror stories? Post a comment and share them with us.
Most people's raises are tied directly to their review. The better your review, the better your chance of getting a raise. If you get a poor review, you have a pretty good chance of spending your time at work searching for a new job on the internet. So it comes as no surprise that review time can be quite stressful for many people. For some people, a review can make or break their career - one bad review at the wrong time and you could wind up stuck in the same job (at the same pay) for the foreseeable future. However, a good review at the right time could propel you into a whole new world of possibilities, with doors opening before you that you wouldn't have imagined possible just a short while ago. Or at the very least, you could get a 3% raise.
So with so much riding on these reviews, it's no wonder that people spend a lot of time worrying about them. What will your boss say about you? About the quality of work you do? Will your boss say you are a "hard worker" or are there "opportunities for improvement?" Are you a "model employee whose characteristics are such that all other employees should strive to be like you" or are you "a devious, lazy sloth who has, on no fewer than three occasions, been caught stealing office supplies?" By the way, that last one will probably get you no more than a 1% raise, so try to not be that one.
Sometimes, in order to crank up the tension, companies will include peer evaluations as part of the review process. That's right, your co-workers opinions will have a direct impact on how much of a raise (if any) you get. On the surface, this may not sound all that bad, especially if you are friends with the people you work with. But dig a little deeper, and you'll see why this could be a disaster.
First of all, this would only be a benefit to you if you get to pick the people who do the review. If you get to pick your close friends, and reach a "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" agreement, this is not a problem. However, if your manager gets to pick the reviewers, there's a decent chance that your manager will pick people who are not your friend and will be more objective. Worse case scenario, your manager (maybe knowingly, maybe not) picks someone that doesn't like you, or has an axe to grind with you. Suddenly, you're forced to either kiss up to this person, or accept the fact that your review will be filled with comments like "Needs to improve: personal hygiene." Your only hope is that you are selected to review this person as well, resulting in a stalemate. Remember "MAD" from the Cold War? Mutually Assured Destruction. It's what kept the USA and USSR from launching nukes at each other. The same principle will keep you and your co-worker from lobbing bombs at each other in your reviews.
Some companies take the torture one step further. As part of the evaluation process, you have to evaluate yourself. While this may seem like a slam dunk in your favor, it isn't necessarily the blessing it appears to be.
While you do have the opportunity to lavish ridiculous amounts of undeserved praise upon yourself, keep in mind that this portion of review will be taken with a boulder-sized grain of salt. As foolish as we like to think management is, management is smart enough to know that you're going to pat yourself on the back a little more than anyone else would. While saying that you "saved the company $1.4 million dollars while simultaneously streamlining the work process of your entire division" may sound good, there's a decent chance that your manager will at least question you about it. On the bright side, no manager expects you to be completely honest, so you can get away with one or two white lies, like "consistently shows up on time" and "is willing to help others with their work whenever possible."
The biggest downside to the self-evaluation is the part that asks you to describe "opportunities for improvement" - in other words, what don't you do well enough that will justify your small raise. Not only are they picking on your weak points (in the unlikely event you have any), but they're making you do it for them. Then they can come back and say that "we would've liked to have given you a bigger raise, but as you pointed out, you need to improve on..." and at that point, whatever words come next don't really matter. The key to try to avoid this pitfall is to pick things that are easy to improve on, or things that aren't important, or things you already do well (so that when your next review comes along, you can brag about how much you "improved" in this area). Examples of these might be taking better notes during meetings, working better with others, and no longer selling trade secrets to your competitors.
If you're lucky, you only have to go through this process once a year, and hopefully you're now a little better prepared to tackle your next review. Got any review advice of your own? Any review horror stories? Post a comment and share them with us.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Meetings
No matter where you work, there's a good chance that you spend a sizable amount of time in meetings. These productivity killers come in different sizes, from the huge departmental or company-wide meetings, to smaller staff meetings, to individual meetings with your manager or parole officer. Every once in a while, you might learn something useful in these meetings, or maybe even take away a greater understanding of why things are being done a certain way. But for every one of those enlightening meetings, there are 100 other ones which seem to serve no purpose other than to slowly drain the life force from your body.
Let's start with the larger meetings. If you work in a small company, your "large" meetings might encompass a total of seven or eight people. However, if you work in a large corporation, these large meetings could hold several hundred people and require a sound system to keep the people in the back awake. If you have to go to a large meeting such as this one, you'll no doubt spend the next 60-90 minutes wishing you were Rosie O'Donnell's personal foot massager because that would be better than attending this meeting. But there are ways to make it through the meeting with your sanity intact.
The first key is to sit as far in the back as you can. If possible, in an entirely different room, especially if no one's paying attention. Do not, I repeat, do not sit near the front. Not only will you look like a suck up, but if there's even the possibility of unprovoked group interaction, who is more likely to be picked - the person sitting in row two, or the guy in the back of the room who can't be seen without a pair of binoculars? And don't worry about not being able to see - if there was anything vitally important being shown, they'd either hand out fliers or send an email with the information, they wouldn't expect you to memorize it.
The second key is to sit behind someone much bigger than you. Ideally, you want to plant yourself behind two people much bigger than you. This allows you maximum coverage from being seen by the speaker, thus allowing you to catch some z's during the meeting. And here is where it's important to sit in the back - if you're a snorer, you probably won't be heard by the speaker if you're in the far back. Not to mention the fact that you will definitely been noticed if you're nodding off in the second row.
Moving on, most of you have been subjected to staff meetings. These are usually meetings of 5-20 people who work with you, probably in a team environment. These meetings, while usually shorter than the large meetings, occur much more frequently and therefore are a bigger drain on your time and productivity, not to mention your sanity.
Most staff meetings occur once every week or two, or if you're one of the lucky ones, monthly. The staff meeting is usually led by your boss, or maybe a "Head Peon" or "Supreme Ruler of Peons" (read the archives if this makes no sense. Read the archives even if this does make sense). Often times, there is an "agenda," which is Latin for "Torture List." Your best bet for surviving staff meetings is to keep your mouth shut and don't look up. Eye contact is a big no-no. Any sign that you're paying attention or are at all interested in the subject matter will condemn you to participation. Ironically, one of the keys to surviving a large meeting carries over to the staff meeting - if you can find a large person to hide behind, you can catch a little shut-eye. Maybe not a full-blown nap, since your snoring will no doubt draw attention to yourself, but maybe an extended shutting of the eyes. Just be sure not to get caught; for some reason, napping during staff meetings tends to be frowned upon.
Finally, you have the smallest of all meetings - the individual meeting. Usually this occurs with your boss, or someone else in authority. The keys we discussed earlier on how to survive meetings are thrown out the window. There is zero chance of napping, zero chance of hiding, and a 100% chance of participation. You just have to suck it up and try to get through it unscathed and as quickly as possible. Things will usually go quicker if you don't ask questions or bring issues to your boss's attention. If you're lucky, these individual meetings occur once or twice a month at most. If they happen more than that, maybe it's time for a new job.
So what have we learned? We've learned that management would rather gather employees together to discuss things they perceive to be important instead of letting the employees do their jobs. We've learned that there are ways to survive these meetings. And we've learned that as disgusting as Rosie O'Donnell's feet probably are, it'd be better to massage them than to sit through another mind-numbing meeting.
Do you have any tips on how to survive meetings, or do you have any funny meeting stories? Post a comment and share them with us.
Let's start with the larger meetings. If you work in a small company, your "large" meetings might encompass a total of seven or eight people. However, if you work in a large corporation, these large meetings could hold several hundred people and require a sound system to keep the people in the back awake. If you have to go to a large meeting such as this one, you'll no doubt spend the next 60-90 minutes wishing you were Rosie O'Donnell's personal foot massager because that would be better than attending this meeting. But there are ways to make it through the meeting with your sanity intact.
The first key is to sit as far in the back as you can. If possible, in an entirely different room, especially if no one's paying attention. Do not, I repeat, do not sit near the front. Not only will you look like a suck up, but if there's even the possibility of unprovoked group interaction, who is more likely to be picked - the person sitting in row two, or the guy in the back of the room who can't be seen without a pair of binoculars? And don't worry about not being able to see - if there was anything vitally important being shown, they'd either hand out fliers or send an email with the information, they wouldn't expect you to memorize it.
The second key is to sit behind someone much bigger than you. Ideally, you want to plant yourself behind two people much bigger than you. This allows you maximum coverage from being seen by the speaker, thus allowing you to catch some z's during the meeting. And here is where it's important to sit in the back - if you're a snorer, you probably won't be heard by the speaker if you're in the far back. Not to mention the fact that you will definitely been noticed if you're nodding off in the second row.
Moving on, most of you have been subjected to staff meetings. These are usually meetings of 5-20 people who work with you, probably in a team environment. These meetings, while usually shorter than the large meetings, occur much more frequently and therefore are a bigger drain on your time and productivity, not to mention your sanity.
Most staff meetings occur once every week or two, or if you're one of the lucky ones, monthly. The staff meeting is usually led by your boss, or maybe a "Head Peon" or "Supreme Ruler of Peons" (read the archives if this makes no sense. Read the archives even if this does make sense). Often times, there is an "agenda," which is Latin for "Torture List." Your best bet for surviving staff meetings is to keep your mouth shut and don't look up. Eye contact is a big no-no. Any sign that you're paying attention or are at all interested in the subject matter will condemn you to participation. Ironically, one of the keys to surviving a large meeting carries over to the staff meeting - if you can find a large person to hide behind, you can catch a little shut-eye. Maybe not a full-blown nap, since your snoring will no doubt draw attention to yourself, but maybe an extended shutting of the eyes. Just be sure not to get caught; for some reason, napping during staff meetings tends to be frowned upon.
Finally, you have the smallest of all meetings - the individual meeting. Usually this occurs with your boss, or someone else in authority. The keys we discussed earlier on how to survive meetings are thrown out the window. There is zero chance of napping, zero chance of hiding, and a 100% chance of participation. You just have to suck it up and try to get through it unscathed and as quickly as possible. Things will usually go quicker if you don't ask questions or bring issues to your boss's attention. If you're lucky, these individual meetings occur once or twice a month at most. If they happen more than that, maybe it's time for a new job.
So what have we learned? We've learned that management would rather gather employees together to discuss things they perceive to be important instead of letting the employees do their jobs. We've learned that there are ways to survive these meetings. And we've learned that as disgusting as Rosie O'Donnell's feet probably are, it'd be better to massage them than to sit through another mind-numbing meeting.
Do you have any tips on how to survive meetings, or do you have any funny meeting stories? Post a comment and share them with us.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Workloads
No matter what company you work for, no matter what occupation you work in, you have a "workload." A workload is defined as "the amount of work you are expected to complete, assuming you work 80 hours per week and forgo any semblance of a personal life." For various reasons, most people's workload is greater than what it should be - either because the team or company is short-staffed, or because management has unrealistic expectations of what their employees should be capable of. For whatever reason, chances are, you are expected to do more work than you are capable of doing, and if you manage to somehow complete all this work, you are rewarded with more work.
However, I have noticed a disturbing trend. It's possible that this is an isolated incident, but somehow I doubt it. First, a little background information.
In my company, there are a variety of different jobs, and many of these jobs have different levels or steps. If you work there long enough and do a good enough job, you could earn a promotion to a higher step within your job. This comes with a pay raise (in theory at least), and a title change. For example, in one job your title may be "Peon Level I" then you get promoted to "Peon Level II" - see the difference? Or maybe you get bestowed the title of "Senior Peon" or "Head Peon" or "Supreme Ruler of Peons." The titles may change from company to company, but you get the drift. (Note: I'm not referring to management positions here, just regular jobs that have different levels.)
At any rate, these higher levels are generally given to people who have proven that their knowledge of their job and their industry is superior to most others, and their dedication and hard work is rivaled by few others. Or management was forced to promote someone and chose the person least likely to call in a bomb threat. Either way, the person is recognized as being a leader and this usually means they earn a little more moolah as a result.
Back to the disturbing trend. One would think that people who are at the higher levels, earning more money, would be expected to either do more work than those at the lower levels or otherwise perform more difficult work than those at the lower levels. It only makes sense to have your most talented employees tackle the most challenging work, or at least tackle a larger amount of it, especially if the most talented employees are making more money than the rest of the group. But like I said, this would make sense; therefore, it doesn't happen.
Now, don't get me wrong - this isn't the fault of the employees. In fact, I'd be a hypocrite if I said I wouldn't want to earn more and do less. I challenge you to find me one person who would willingly take on more work and a pay cut at the same time. No one would, of course, and almost everyone would love to make more money and do less work. However, when it becomes apparent that the underlings are doing more work than the Supreme Ruler of Peons, and getting paid less to do it, it certainly doesn't foster a positive atmosphere in the workplace.
You may be asking, but how do you know the underlings are doing more work? It depends on what kind of job you do. If you work in an office and everyone uses a computer, you may be able to track the amount of work done by everyone in your group, especially if everyone gets their work from a central work list. If you work in a store or restaurant, you can probably witness firsthand the amount of work done by the Head Peon and compare it to the amount of work you do. You get the idea.
In my job, for example, everyone has access to view each other's workload. This is done for coverage purposes - if someone is out sick, the team can work directly off of that person's workload and keep things current. This access also shows which people have the most work to do, and which people have the least. Ironically, in my group, the people who have the least amount of work to do are also "Head Peons." Again, I want to point out that this isn't their fault, and the people on my team are not angry at them. Instead, it's management that is to blame and doesn't even recognize the problem. And how do you think your boss would react if you went to him and said that you do more work for less money than so-and-so and you want something done about it? Would he be more likely to say "You're right! Would you prefer a raise, or less work?" or "I hear Sanjaya needs a new hair stylist, how does your resume look?"
So what do you think it does for employee morale when people realize that they are doing more work than the people "above" them who are making more money? Does this situation occur at your job? Share your stories with us.
However, I have noticed a disturbing trend. It's possible that this is an isolated incident, but somehow I doubt it. First, a little background information.
In my company, there are a variety of different jobs, and many of these jobs have different levels or steps. If you work there long enough and do a good enough job, you could earn a promotion to a higher step within your job. This comes with a pay raise (in theory at least), and a title change. For example, in one job your title may be "Peon Level I" then you get promoted to "Peon Level II" - see the difference? Or maybe you get bestowed the title of "Senior Peon" or "Head Peon" or "Supreme Ruler of Peons." The titles may change from company to company, but you get the drift. (Note: I'm not referring to management positions here, just regular jobs that have different levels.)
At any rate, these higher levels are generally given to people who have proven that their knowledge of their job and their industry is superior to most others, and their dedication and hard work is rivaled by few others. Or management was forced to promote someone and chose the person least likely to call in a bomb threat. Either way, the person is recognized as being a leader and this usually means they earn a little more moolah as a result.
Back to the disturbing trend. One would think that people who are at the higher levels, earning more money, would be expected to either do more work than those at the lower levels or otherwise perform more difficult work than those at the lower levels. It only makes sense to have your most talented employees tackle the most challenging work, or at least tackle a larger amount of it, especially if the most talented employees are making more money than the rest of the group. But like I said, this would make sense; therefore, it doesn't happen.
Now, don't get me wrong - this isn't the fault of the employees. In fact, I'd be a hypocrite if I said I wouldn't want to earn more and do less. I challenge you to find me one person who would willingly take on more work and a pay cut at the same time. No one would, of course, and almost everyone would love to make more money and do less work. However, when it becomes apparent that the underlings are doing more work than the Supreme Ruler of Peons, and getting paid less to do it, it certainly doesn't foster a positive atmosphere in the workplace.
You may be asking, but how do you know the underlings are doing more work? It depends on what kind of job you do. If you work in an office and everyone uses a computer, you may be able to track the amount of work done by everyone in your group, especially if everyone gets their work from a central work list. If you work in a store or restaurant, you can probably witness firsthand the amount of work done by the Head Peon and compare it to the amount of work you do. You get the idea.
In my job, for example, everyone has access to view each other's workload. This is done for coverage purposes - if someone is out sick, the team can work directly off of that person's workload and keep things current. This access also shows which people have the most work to do, and which people have the least. Ironically, in my group, the people who have the least amount of work to do are also "Head Peons." Again, I want to point out that this isn't their fault, and the people on my team are not angry at them. Instead, it's management that is to blame and doesn't even recognize the problem. And how do you think your boss would react if you went to him and said that you do more work for less money than so-and-so and you want something done about it? Would he be more likely to say "You're right! Would you prefer a raise, or less work?" or "I hear Sanjaya needs a new hair stylist, how does your resume look?"
So what do you think it does for employee morale when people realize that they are doing more work than the people "above" them who are making more money? Does this situation occur at your job? Share your stories with us.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Things your employer would rather spend money on than your raise
As I've said before in this space, most of us go to work to make money, not because we enjoy toiling behind a computer in a cramped space surrounded by people with IQs that are usually lower than that day's temperature. So it only makes sense that if we're forced to work, we want to earn as much money possible. Unfortunately, this is not the same goal your employer has.
Your employer would like nothing more than to get the maximum amount of high-quality work from you for the lowest possible price. If you think this isn't true, then ask yourself when was the last time you got a raise that outpaced the rate of inflation (if you've even gotten a raise lately).
So your goals (goof off as much as possible and make as much money as possible while doing it) and your employer's goals would seem to be at odds with each other. What does this mean for you? Chances are, it probably means you'll be getting the same 0-4% raise that you've gotten for the last few years. Sure, you could quit and try working for a different company, but do you really think there's a company out there that rewards goofing off by awarding 15% raises? (If you do know of such a company, email me immediately at employeemorale@gmail.com)
If you are lucky enough to get a raise (and believe me, there are people out there who won't be getting them this year), you will likely wind up getting less than a 5% bump in pay, even if your company's profits were so ridiculously high that even the oil companies were jealous (and if your company did rake in enormous profits, it would still tell you that money is tight and raises would reflect that).
Let's say that you're told that for all your hard work, sacrifice, and usually legal efforts, you'll be rewarded with a 3% raise. For someone making $20,000 per year, that works out to an extra $600 per year, or $50 per month. At $30,000 per year, it is $900 more per year ($75 per month), at $40,000 per year, you're looking at $1,200 more ($100 per month), and at $50,000 per year, it'll be $1,500 more ($125 per month). If you make more than $50,000 per year, you're probably not reading this column.
As you can see, a 3% raise doesn't exactly afford you the finer things in life. In fact, it probably just barely covers the extra amount you have to pay each month due to rising fuel costs, higher energy bills, and the cable company finally realizing that you've been stealing cable from your neighbor for the last year. If you make $20,000, what good does an extra 50 bucks a month do? Or if you make $30,000, is that extra 75 bucks a month going to get you into a nice home? And don't forget, taxes will eat up a good portion of that raise, especially if the raise puts you into a higher tax bracket.
So we know that employers aren't cutting each other in line to give you more money. This is a fact of life across most professions. The real slap in the face comes when management tells you that money is tight and raises will be small, but then you see all these other things that the company is spending money on. Frivolous things. For example, they can only afford to give you a 2% raise, but there's plenty of money in the budget for about two dozen landscapers to make sure that there are plenty of pretty flowers all around the building, all year round. There's also apparently enough money for the flat screen plasma TV that welcomes people into your building (which only displays your company's name - at least throw the ball game on there!). Plus, don't forget the fancy artwork that hangs in the halls and conference rooms which seems to change every few months.
And then, to top it off, you stumble across information related to Upper-Upper-Upper-Upper-Upper Management, and how much they make (by the way, this is usually public information, you just need to know where to look). Does it make you feel any better to know that your company's top executives get bonuses that are greater than their million dollar salaries, while you struggle to keep your checking account in the black?
The next time you go to work, take a look around. Do you see things that your company is wasting money on, while at the same time telling you that there isn't much money for raises this year? Does this make you want to go that extra mile at work, in the hopes that next year maybe your manager will remember all your hard work and maybe give you 4%?
Your employer would like nothing more than to get the maximum amount of high-quality work from you for the lowest possible price. If you think this isn't true, then ask yourself when was the last time you got a raise that outpaced the rate of inflation (if you've even gotten a raise lately).
So your goals (goof off as much as possible and make as much money as possible while doing it) and your employer's goals would seem to be at odds with each other. What does this mean for you? Chances are, it probably means you'll be getting the same 0-4% raise that you've gotten for the last few years. Sure, you could quit and try working for a different company, but do you really think there's a company out there that rewards goofing off by awarding 15% raises? (If you do know of such a company, email me immediately at employeemorale@gmail.com)
If you are lucky enough to get a raise (and believe me, there are people out there who won't be getting them this year), you will likely wind up getting less than a 5% bump in pay, even if your company's profits were so ridiculously high that even the oil companies were jealous (and if your company did rake in enormous profits, it would still tell you that money is tight and raises would reflect that).
Let's say that you're told that for all your hard work, sacrifice, and usually legal efforts, you'll be rewarded with a 3% raise. For someone making $20,000 per year, that works out to an extra $600 per year, or $50 per month. At $30,000 per year, it is $900 more per year ($75 per month), at $40,000 per year, you're looking at $1,200 more ($100 per month), and at $50,000 per year, it'll be $1,500 more ($125 per month). If you make more than $50,000 per year, you're probably not reading this column.
As you can see, a 3% raise doesn't exactly afford you the finer things in life. In fact, it probably just barely covers the extra amount you have to pay each month due to rising fuel costs, higher energy bills, and the cable company finally realizing that you've been stealing cable from your neighbor for the last year. If you make $20,000, what good does an extra 50 bucks a month do? Or if you make $30,000, is that extra 75 bucks a month going to get you into a nice home? And don't forget, taxes will eat up a good portion of that raise, especially if the raise puts you into a higher tax bracket.
So we know that employers aren't cutting each other in line to give you more money. This is a fact of life across most professions. The real slap in the face comes when management tells you that money is tight and raises will be small, but then you see all these other things that the company is spending money on. Frivolous things. For example, they can only afford to give you a 2% raise, but there's plenty of money in the budget for about two dozen landscapers to make sure that there are plenty of pretty flowers all around the building, all year round. There's also apparently enough money for the flat screen plasma TV that welcomes people into your building (which only displays your company's name - at least throw the ball game on there!). Plus, don't forget the fancy artwork that hangs in the halls and conference rooms which seems to change every few months.
And then, to top it off, you stumble across information related to Upper-Upper-Upper-Upper-Upper Management, and how much they make (by the way, this is usually public information, you just need to know where to look). Does it make you feel any better to know that your company's top executives get bonuses that are greater than their million dollar salaries, while you struggle to keep your checking account in the black?
The next time you go to work, take a look around. Do you see things that your company is wasting money on, while at the same time telling you that there isn't much money for raises this year? Does this make you want to go that extra mile at work, in the hopes that next year maybe your manager will remember all your hard work and maybe give you 4%?
Friday, April 6, 2007
Making up time
If you're an exempt employee (otherwise known as "salaried" or "enslaved"), you know the pleasure of putting in more than 40 hours per week and not getting paid overtime. It's one of the "perks" of being an exempt employee. The general idea is that you stay until you get your work done, and if it takes you longer than 8 hours a day or 40 hours a week, then you're just not working hard enough and you need to stay late to get it done and you don't get paid anything to do it. You are essentially volunteering your time to the company out of the kindness of your heart to make sure shareholders get maximum value.
Once in a while, an event will occur which causes a hiccup in the normal 40 hour work week. Most of the time, at least in northern states, this is due to a major snowstorm. Either the storm is so bad that the business decides to close for the day (rare), or the business is open, you are expected to risk life and limb to get there, and then later in the day it's decided that you will be let go early because the geniuses in management realize that it's not even safe for plows to be on the roads.
In my company, this has happened a couple of times over the last few years. Usually, the employees are notified around 1 pm that the business will be closing at 2 pm. This means different things to different people. For people who normally leave at 3 pm, this isn't that big a deal. For people that leave at 5 pm or 6 pm (or later), this is like getting half a day off.
Most of the time, employees are not expected to make up the time that they missed due to being dismissed early for a snowstorm. It was a company decision, and the employees generally are not asked to come in on the weekend to make it up (hourly and salaried employees alike). By the way, this is one of the few things companies can do to NOT kill employee morale, so it's nice when it happens. However, not all companies have this policy, and some companies do force their employees to make up the time.
My company is one of the companies that does not require its employees to make up the time for early release due to snowstorms (at least as of today - you never know when this will change). However, my company does have a curious policy when other circumstances force the early closure of the business.
A few months ago, a major computer problem caused one of the most-used computer programs to be shut down, with no immediate ETA on when it would be fixed. Most employees in the company cannot do their jobs without access to this program, that's how vital it is. So most of us tried to keep busy with other work, though truth be told, there wasn't a whole lot to do without access to this program.
An hour went by with no update. Then another hour. Finally we heard from IT - they would get back to us within an hour to give us an update on when they would get back to us. Thanks guys, big help. By now, it was nearing lunch time - people were getting hungry, work was piling up, people were frustrated. We got our next update, which stated that the system MIGHT be fixed within four hours. Well, many people were scheduled to leave work before then, and they sure as heck weren't going to be happy if they had to stay late just to see IF the systems would come back up.
Eventually, rumors started circulating that other departments were being sent home. People in my department started wondering if this would happen to us. We heard another rumor that our managers were having a meeting to discuss this. Finally, about half an hour later (it's about 1 pm by now), management announces we are being sent home, however, all salaried employees MUST make up the time being missed, and all hourly employees must either make up the time or not get paid for the hours they will miss.
So, let's get everything straight. When a snowstorm causes people to get released, no one has to make up the time, but a computer glitch which causes people to get released is treated differently? And salaried employees, who often times put in more than 40 hours in a week as it is, have to make up this time? Really? Even though they would likely be at or over 40 hours worked even if they get released 2-4 hours early? And to top it off, the time had to be made up by Saturday (this happened on a Wednesday). That means, your options were to come in early or stay late on Thursday and/or Friday, or work on Saturday. Doesn't matter if you have kids or a second job, or were going on vacation, this HAD TO BE DONE.
When people brought all this up with management, they were given the excuse that salaried workers are expected to make up this time no matter what. As you can imagine, the result of all of this was improved employee morale, increased productivity, and a desire to continue to work extra hours for no additional benefit. Oh, wait - I mean the exact opposite of those things, that was the result.
Look, I can understand that management didn't want to pay hundreds, if not thousands, of hours of salary for time that wasn't worked, but look at the situation; they demanded that employees who regularly put in extra hours each week come in and make up time. Even if you had worked 50 hours the prior week (10 hours of "free" work for the company), you were expected to make up 2-3 hours for this incident. And management wonders why employee retention is always one of the things that tops the list of "Must Improve" year after year.
Has this, or something similar, happened at your company? Share your story with us. Misery loves company!
Once in a while, an event will occur which causes a hiccup in the normal 40 hour work week. Most of the time, at least in northern states, this is due to a major snowstorm. Either the storm is so bad that the business decides to close for the day (rare), or the business is open, you are expected to risk life and limb to get there, and then later in the day it's decided that you will be let go early because the geniuses in management realize that it's not even safe for plows to be on the roads.
In my company, this has happened a couple of times over the last few years. Usually, the employees are notified around 1 pm that the business will be closing at 2 pm. This means different things to different people. For people who normally leave at 3 pm, this isn't that big a deal. For people that leave at 5 pm or 6 pm (or later), this is like getting half a day off.
Most of the time, employees are not expected to make up the time that they missed due to being dismissed early for a snowstorm. It was a company decision, and the employees generally are not asked to come in on the weekend to make it up (hourly and salaried employees alike). By the way, this is one of the few things companies can do to NOT kill employee morale, so it's nice when it happens. However, not all companies have this policy, and some companies do force their employees to make up the time.
My company is one of the companies that does not require its employees to make up the time for early release due to snowstorms (at least as of today - you never know when this will change). However, my company does have a curious policy when other circumstances force the early closure of the business.
A few months ago, a major computer problem caused one of the most-used computer programs to be shut down, with no immediate ETA on when it would be fixed. Most employees in the company cannot do their jobs without access to this program, that's how vital it is. So most of us tried to keep busy with other work, though truth be told, there wasn't a whole lot to do without access to this program.
An hour went by with no update. Then another hour. Finally we heard from IT - they would get back to us within an hour to give us an update on when they would get back to us. Thanks guys, big help. By now, it was nearing lunch time - people were getting hungry, work was piling up, people were frustrated. We got our next update, which stated that the system MIGHT be fixed within four hours. Well, many people were scheduled to leave work before then, and they sure as heck weren't going to be happy if they had to stay late just to see IF the systems would come back up.
Eventually, rumors started circulating that other departments were being sent home. People in my department started wondering if this would happen to us. We heard another rumor that our managers were having a meeting to discuss this. Finally, about half an hour later (it's about 1 pm by now), management announces we are being sent home, however, all salaried employees MUST make up the time being missed, and all hourly employees must either make up the time or not get paid for the hours they will miss.
So, let's get everything straight. When a snowstorm causes people to get released, no one has to make up the time, but a computer glitch which causes people to get released is treated differently? And salaried employees, who often times put in more than 40 hours in a week as it is, have to make up this time? Really? Even though they would likely be at or over 40 hours worked even if they get released 2-4 hours early? And to top it off, the time had to be made up by Saturday (this happened on a Wednesday). That means, your options were to come in early or stay late on Thursday and/or Friday, or work on Saturday. Doesn't matter if you have kids or a second job, or were going on vacation, this HAD TO BE DONE.
When people brought all this up with management, they were given the excuse that salaried workers are expected to make up this time no matter what. As you can imagine, the result of all of this was improved employee morale, increased productivity, and a desire to continue to work extra hours for no additional benefit. Oh, wait - I mean the exact opposite of those things, that was the result.
Look, I can understand that management didn't want to pay hundreds, if not thousands, of hours of salary for time that wasn't worked, but look at the situation; they demanded that employees who regularly put in extra hours each week come in and make up time. Even if you had worked 50 hours the prior week (10 hours of "free" work for the company), you were expected to make up 2-3 hours for this incident. And management wonders why employee retention is always one of the things that tops the list of "Must Improve" year after year.
Has this, or something similar, happened at your company? Share your story with us. Misery loves company!
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
Corporate Dress Code
One of the "perks" many companies offer is a relaxed dress code. This could mean that you're allowed to wear shorts and a t-shirt, it may mean you can wear jeans and sneakers, maybe you're allowed to wear polo shirts instead of a suit and tie. It depends on the company, and industry, in which you work. Companies do this because they spend most of their time sucking the life force from you, so they least they can do is let you choose which clothes you wear while it happens.
Many companies have developed a business casual dress code, meaning that you don't need to wear a tie, and although t-shirts are a no-no, you don't necessarily have to wear a button-up shirt; you can get away with a sweater or polo shirt. Some companies will let you wear jeans to work, as long as you aren't doing your best Daisy Duke impression. This is what I want to focus on today - jeans.
The company I work for will generally let its employees wear jeans to work. This is nice, because it fosters a casual, relaxed attitude among the employees. Okay, maybe that's not true, but at least jeans can be worn more than once without washing them, so that's a plus. Anyway, there are times when the company does not allow jeans to be worn - this usually occurs when there are customers visiting the company. Apparently, it's okay to trick customers into thinking you have professional-looking staff. What's the harm in letting your customers see your employees wearing jeans? Are they afraid that the customers will take their business elsewhere? And if that is the case, why let employees wear jeans in the first place?
So what happens if you wear jeans on a "no jeans day?" Well, unless you keep a spare pair of Dockers in your desk drawer, you have the option of going home to change, or if you live far away, going to a store and buying a pair. Naturally, you have to make up the time you missed while getting a new pair of pants. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately), going pants-less is not an option at this time.
Most customer visits follow a specific path, weaving throughout certain sections of the building where employees work and also hitting many of the public areas like the cafeteria and the torture chamber. The customer path is well known to the employees - it doesn't change (the customer path is generally chosen to specifically highlight key areas of the business, stopping by to pop in on certain members of the workforce, and rarely deviating beyond this, lest the customers see some of the other "talent" that is employed at the company).
This begs the question - if I'm not on the customer path, and I'm not going anywhere near the customer path, and I'm planning on doing everything I can to avoid being anywhere in the vicinity of customers or paths, can I wear jeans that day? The answer is a resounding "WHAT ARE YOU, STUPID?"
So anyone that is "caught" wearing jeans during a customer visit is sent home (or to the nearest Abercrombie and Fitch). Chances are, this either has happened to you, or it will. This happened to me very recently. A customer visit was scheduled for a Wednesday, it got changed to a Tuesday, I didn't pick up on this and was told to go home and change. This, in and of itself, didn't bother me. What did bother me was that later that day, I witnessed over a dozen other people in my building AND in another building along the customer path wearing jeans. I also saw TWO MANAGERS wearing jeans this same day. So it's not the fact that I had to go home and change that got me angry- it was the fact that I was apparently the only one who did have to go home and change, and even other managers on my floor apparently didn't have to abide by this rule.
Did this situation improve my morale as an employee? Did being singled out while other people (even managers) openly broke the rule without repercussions make me want to work harder? Granted, I didn't want other people to get in trouble so I didn't rat anyone out, I only ask to be treated the same as everyone else.
A few weeks ago, some of my co-workers had a similar situation. We had a late-in-the-day announcement that a visit was scheduled for the next day. However, this notice came out so late that many people had left for the day and didn't get the notice until the day of the visit. These people sit about as far away from the customer path as possible, yet they were still forced to change their clothes (several actually had to go and buy new pants). And to top it off, we heard from other people that same day who were allowed to stay in jeans because they weren't on the path. Somehow, this was okay, even though my co-workers are further away from the customer path than the people who didn't have to change. You can imagine how high employee morale was that day.
Bottom line, it's nice that we get to wear jeans most of the time, and it's understandable why we are asked to dress up a bit when customers come to visit. But it only serves to kill employee morale when this rule is selectively enforced by different departments.
Does your company have a "no jeans" rule? Share your stories with us.
Many companies have developed a business casual dress code, meaning that you don't need to wear a tie, and although t-shirts are a no-no, you don't necessarily have to wear a button-up shirt; you can get away with a sweater or polo shirt. Some companies will let you wear jeans to work, as long as you aren't doing your best Daisy Duke impression. This is what I want to focus on today - jeans.
The company I work for will generally let its employees wear jeans to work. This is nice, because it fosters a casual, relaxed attitude among the employees. Okay, maybe that's not true, but at least jeans can be worn more than once without washing them, so that's a plus. Anyway, there are times when the company does not allow jeans to be worn - this usually occurs when there are customers visiting the company. Apparently, it's okay to trick customers into thinking you have professional-looking staff. What's the harm in letting your customers see your employees wearing jeans? Are they afraid that the customers will take their business elsewhere? And if that is the case, why let employees wear jeans in the first place?
So what happens if you wear jeans on a "no jeans day?" Well, unless you keep a spare pair of Dockers in your desk drawer, you have the option of going home to change, or if you live far away, going to a store and buying a pair. Naturally, you have to make up the time you missed while getting a new pair of pants. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately), going pants-less is not an option at this time.
Most customer visits follow a specific path, weaving throughout certain sections of the building where employees work and also hitting many of the public areas like the cafeteria and the torture chamber. The customer path is well known to the employees - it doesn't change (the customer path is generally chosen to specifically highlight key areas of the business, stopping by to pop in on certain members of the workforce, and rarely deviating beyond this, lest the customers see some of the other "talent" that is employed at the company).
This begs the question - if I'm not on the customer path, and I'm not going anywhere near the customer path, and I'm planning on doing everything I can to avoid being anywhere in the vicinity of customers or paths, can I wear jeans that day? The answer is a resounding "WHAT ARE YOU, STUPID?"
So anyone that is "caught" wearing jeans during a customer visit is sent home (or to the nearest Abercrombie and Fitch). Chances are, this either has happened to you, or it will. This happened to me very recently. A customer visit was scheduled for a Wednesday, it got changed to a Tuesday, I didn't pick up on this and was told to go home and change. This, in and of itself, didn't bother me. What did bother me was that later that day, I witnessed over a dozen other people in my building AND in another building along the customer path wearing jeans. I also saw TWO MANAGERS wearing jeans this same day. So it's not the fact that I had to go home and change that got me angry- it was the fact that I was apparently the only one who did have to go home and change, and even other managers on my floor apparently didn't have to abide by this rule.
Did this situation improve my morale as an employee? Did being singled out while other people (even managers) openly broke the rule without repercussions make me want to work harder? Granted, I didn't want other people to get in trouble so I didn't rat anyone out, I only ask to be treated the same as everyone else.
A few weeks ago, some of my co-workers had a similar situation. We had a late-in-the-day announcement that a visit was scheduled for the next day. However, this notice came out so late that many people had left for the day and didn't get the notice until the day of the visit. These people sit about as far away from the customer path as possible, yet they were still forced to change their clothes (several actually had to go and buy new pants). And to top it off, we heard from other people that same day who were allowed to stay in jeans because they weren't on the path. Somehow, this was okay, even though my co-workers are further away from the customer path than the people who didn't have to change. You can imagine how high employee morale was that day.
Bottom line, it's nice that we get to wear jeans most of the time, and it's understandable why we are asked to dress up a bit when customers come to visit. But it only serves to kill employee morale when this rule is selectively enforced by different departments.
Does your company have a "no jeans" rule? Share your stories with us.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Employee Recognition
One of the ways companies try (and fail) to raise employee morale is by something called an Employee Recognition Program. The idea behind this simple premise is to single out hard-working stiffs and give them some sort of prize, which in turn encourages them to work harder for the same rate of menial pay. Seems pretty simple, right? A low cost, low risk, high reward solution that makes employees feel like their contributions are "valued" and that their work is "meaningful."
So how does a company screw this up? One way is to make the prize worthless. For example, any reward that results in a certificate of appreciation will result in reduced employee morale. A plaque is nicer, but ultimately still has the same result. But why?
The reason that 99.9 % of us go to work is because we need to make money. That's why employers have to pay us - why else would we be there? There is the .1% that is the exception to the rule. These are usually retirees who have nothing else to do, or people sentenced to community service. So our ultimate goal when we go to work is to make as much money as possible, and hopefully make enough so we can retire early and never have to work again.
I don't know about you, but if I win an award, I'd rather have a cash prize over anything else. If a company wants to show me that they value my work, then show me the money. That's why I'm there. When a company gives you an award, and all you get is a piece of paper and a pat on the back, what kind of reward is that? I'm not saying they should double my salary for doing something right, but an extra few bucks in my paycheck would be a nice gesture.
I know of one company that takes the step of killing employee morale one step further. They have a recognition program set up where co-workers can nominate each other for cashless awards, sort of a peer-to-peer award (this is a paper award, as discussed above). This allows co-workers to show each other that they are appreciated. At the end of each quarter, the company takes all the awards and randomly selects one of the nominees, who in turn wins a prize. What is the prize, you ask? A $25 gift certificate... to the corporate store. That's right, as a way of rewarding its employees, the company let's them spend up to 25 bucks on hats or t-shirts or a sweatshirt with the company logo on it (and if you pick something over $25, like I imagine a sweatshirt would be, you get to pay for the rest of it with your own money! What an incentive program!). And to top it off, this company recently changed its name, so you get to buy corporate merchandise with the OLD LOGO ON IT, because the new logo isn't ready yet! And this is somehow supposed to be a reward? You're telling me there's even one person in that company that would rather have that prize than have an extra 25 bucks in their next paycheck?
Bottom line, if a company wants to show its employees that the employees are valued, the most effective way to do that is to toss them an extra few bucks. Certificates, plaques, corporate gift cards, all those other things may seem nice, but in reality, we would rather you take the money you spend on those things and just share a little more money with us.
As you can see, even when companies get the right idea on how to increase employee morale, it's so poorly executed that it can actually have the opposite effect. Does your company do something like this? Share your examples of Employee Recognition Programs.
So how does a company screw this up? One way is to make the prize worthless. For example, any reward that results in a certificate of appreciation will result in reduced employee morale. A plaque is nicer, but ultimately still has the same result. But why?
The reason that 99.9 % of us go to work is because we need to make money. That's why employers have to pay us - why else would we be there? There is the .1% that is the exception to the rule. These are usually retirees who have nothing else to do, or people sentenced to community service. So our ultimate goal when we go to work is to make as much money as possible, and hopefully make enough so we can retire early and never have to work again.
I don't know about you, but if I win an award, I'd rather have a cash prize over anything else. If a company wants to show me that they value my work, then show me the money. That's why I'm there. When a company gives you an award, and all you get is a piece of paper and a pat on the back, what kind of reward is that? I'm not saying they should double my salary for doing something right, but an extra few bucks in my paycheck would be a nice gesture.
I know of one company that takes the step of killing employee morale one step further. They have a recognition program set up where co-workers can nominate each other for cashless awards, sort of a peer-to-peer award (this is a paper award, as discussed above). This allows co-workers to show each other that they are appreciated. At the end of each quarter, the company takes all the awards and randomly selects one of the nominees, who in turn wins a prize. What is the prize, you ask? A $25 gift certificate... to the corporate store. That's right, as a way of rewarding its employees, the company let's them spend up to 25 bucks on hats or t-shirts or a sweatshirt with the company logo on it (and if you pick something over $25, like I imagine a sweatshirt would be, you get to pay for the rest of it with your own money! What an incentive program!). And to top it off, this company recently changed its name, so you get to buy corporate merchandise with the OLD LOGO ON IT, because the new logo isn't ready yet! And this is somehow supposed to be a reward? You're telling me there's even one person in that company that would rather have that prize than have an extra 25 bucks in their next paycheck?
Bottom line, if a company wants to show its employees that the employees are valued, the most effective way to do that is to toss them an extra few bucks. Certificates, plaques, corporate gift cards, all those other things may seem nice, but in reality, we would rather you take the money you spend on those things and just share a little more money with us.
As you can see, even when companies get the right idea on how to increase employee morale, it's so poorly executed that it can actually have the opposite effect. Does your company do something like this? Share your examples of Employee Recognition Programs.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Bonuses
Employee morale (if such a thing exists) is a topic that will be covered quite frequently in this space. One of the ways companies try to raise employee morale is by giving a bonus to its employees.
If you have a job, there's a decent chance that your company has some kind of bonus program to reward its hard working employees (and sometimes even the slackers). Usually you have to be a full-time employee, and most of the time the company has to have had a good year, though this isn't always the case. My company used to have a bonus program only for managers, but recently they extended it to include all employees (assuming you met certain time-in-job criteria). This was obviously a nice gesture by the company, and was initially appreciated by its employees. But given the title of this blog, you've probably guessed that there's more to the story.
Back in the "old days" of this company, every employee used to get bonuses, and from what I've been told by people who were here at that time, they were significant. In fact, rumor has it that auto dealerships in the area used to have extended hours when the bonuses were awarded because they were often large enough to purchase a car (or at least make a great down payment).
A few years ago, things changed. New management took over, and many of the perks that were common in the "old days" were suddenly gone, including bonuses (except, of course, for management). The result, surprising as it may seem, is that employee morale went down instead of up! How about that! Take away the bonus, and it hurt employee morale! Who would have thought?
Fast forward a few years and the company, after realizing that many of its employees were abandoning ship, decided it would be in its best interests to do something to try to retain its employees. It was announced that the bonus program was coming back, and it wasn't just for managers anymore. However, the employees quickly discovered, there was a catch.
The bonus program was not an automatic payout each year. It was to be voted on by the Board of Directors, and if they decided not to approve it, the employees were SOL. On top of that, the amount of the bonus varied from person to person, even to the point that some employees may not even receive one even though everyone else on their team did. It all depended on a bunch of variables, most of which were out of the employees' hands.
First of all, the corporation had to have a good year. This means all segments of the company, all over the world. Second, the US division had to have a good year. Third, the section of the US division you were in had to have a good year. And finally, YOU had to have a good review from your manager. And if all four of these criteria were met, you were eligible for a bonus up to four percent of your average pay for the prior year. Read that again. Assuming that the corporation did well, the US division did well, your section did well, and you got a good review, you could get a maximum of four percent of your average earnings from last year. That last part is key - your average earnings are not the same as your end of year salary. If you got a decent raise during the year, you don't get a bonus based on your current salary, you get a bonus based on what your average earnings were. So if you got promoted or got a raise late in the year, it won't have much of an impact on your bonus because most of your earnings for the year were at the lower salary.
So what do we have here? The company, in an attempt to raise employee morale, actually deflated all of the excitement by putting so many conditions on the potential bonus that it took away any joy and good will that it might have created. Certain people in the company, whose section didn't do so well, got smaller bonuses (maybe 1-3%). Other people, in sections that did well, got maybe 2-3% because of a poor review from their manager. I know of at least one person who did not get one at all, even though the rest of the group qualified, because of a poor manager review (she swore her manager hated her). And to top it off, the bonus was a maximum of 4% of average earnings, and don't forget that 40% of the check goes to taxes.
Now, it would be ignorant of me to pooh-pooh this program entirely, because at least the company is trying. However, the straw that broke the camels back is not that these bonuses are miniscule compared to what the company used to do, it's that our competitors outdid us by a wide margin. We were told that part of the reason our company brought back the bonus program was to keep employees from jumping to our competitors, and that their research tells them that our bonus program is in line with our competitors. However, when our employees do leave, we often keep in touch with them because we're friends. Well, several of them who have gone on to work at our competitors have called to let us know that they just got their bonuses, which ranged from 10-16%, and they didn't have to worry about other parts of the company affecting the amount of bonus they received. That to me does not sound competitive.
This is a perfect example of a company trying to do something good for its employees, but shooting itself in the foot in the process. Their attempt to raise employee morale has actually had the reverse effect, as most employees were either worried that they weren't going to get a bonus, or were worried that it would be relatively small (as it turns out, 4% is less than one normal paycheck). So rather than employees being excited about getting a bonus, many actually look down at the whole process and see greener pastures with our competitors.
Got any good stories to share? Post a comment and share with the rest of us!
If you have a job, there's a decent chance that your company has some kind of bonus program to reward its hard working employees (and sometimes even the slackers). Usually you have to be a full-time employee, and most of the time the company has to have had a good year, though this isn't always the case. My company used to have a bonus program only for managers, but recently they extended it to include all employees (assuming you met certain time-in-job criteria). This was obviously a nice gesture by the company, and was initially appreciated by its employees. But given the title of this blog, you've probably guessed that there's more to the story.
Back in the "old days" of this company, every employee used to get bonuses, and from what I've been told by people who were here at that time, they were significant. In fact, rumor has it that auto dealerships in the area used to have extended hours when the bonuses were awarded because they were often large enough to purchase a car (or at least make a great down payment).
A few years ago, things changed. New management took over, and many of the perks that were common in the "old days" were suddenly gone, including bonuses (except, of course, for management). The result, surprising as it may seem, is that employee morale went down instead of up! How about that! Take away the bonus, and it hurt employee morale! Who would have thought?
Fast forward a few years and the company, after realizing that many of its employees were abandoning ship, decided it would be in its best interests to do something to try to retain its employees. It was announced that the bonus program was coming back, and it wasn't just for managers anymore. However, the employees quickly discovered, there was a catch.
The bonus program was not an automatic payout each year. It was to be voted on by the Board of Directors, and if they decided not to approve it, the employees were SOL. On top of that, the amount of the bonus varied from person to person, even to the point that some employees may not even receive one even though everyone else on their team did. It all depended on a bunch of variables, most of which were out of the employees' hands.
First of all, the corporation had to have a good year. This means all segments of the company, all over the world. Second, the US division had to have a good year. Third, the section of the US division you were in had to have a good year. And finally, YOU had to have a good review from your manager. And if all four of these criteria were met, you were eligible for a bonus up to four percent of your average pay for the prior year. Read that again. Assuming that the corporation did well, the US division did well, your section did well, and you got a good review, you could get a maximum of four percent of your average earnings from last year. That last part is key - your average earnings are not the same as your end of year salary. If you got a decent raise during the year, you don't get a bonus based on your current salary, you get a bonus based on what your average earnings were. So if you got promoted or got a raise late in the year, it won't have much of an impact on your bonus because most of your earnings for the year were at the lower salary.
So what do we have here? The company, in an attempt to raise employee morale, actually deflated all of the excitement by putting so many conditions on the potential bonus that it took away any joy and good will that it might have created. Certain people in the company, whose section didn't do so well, got smaller bonuses (maybe 1-3%). Other people, in sections that did well, got maybe 2-3% because of a poor review from their manager. I know of at least one person who did not get one at all, even though the rest of the group qualified, because of a poor manager review (she swore her manager hated her). And to top it off, the bonus was a maximum of 4% of average earnings, and don't forget that 40% of the check goes to taxes.
Now, it would be ignorant of me to pooh-pooh this program entirely, because at least the company is trying. However, the straw that broke the camels back is not that these bonuses are miniscule compared to what the company used to do, it's that our competitors outdid us by a wide margin. We were told that part of the reason our company brought back the bonus program was to keep employees from jumping to our competitors, and that their research tells them that our bonus program is in line with our competitors. However, when our employees do leave, we often keep in touch with them because we're friends. Well, several of them who have gone on to work at our competitors have called to let us know that they just got their bonuses, which ranged from 10-16%, and they didn't have to worry about other parts of the company affecting the amount of bonus they received. That to me does not sound competitive.
This is a perfect example of a company trying to do something good for its employees, but shooting itself in the foot in the process. Their attempt to raise employee morale has actually had the reverse effect, as most employees were either worried that they weren't going to get a bonus, or were worried that it would be relatively small (as it turns out, 4% is less than one normal paycheck). So rather than employees being excited about getting a bonus, many actually look down at the whole process and see greener pastures with our competitors.
Got any good stories to share? Post a comment and share with the rest of us!
Saturday, March 24, 2007
The Premise
You know the feeling you get when you're sitting in your cube, and you're staring at your computer screen, and you know you really should be doing your work (because let's face it, you know you have a lot of work), but for some reason you can't stop thinking of other places you'd rather be than in your cube? They don't even have to be good places, like "home" or "on my way home." You'd rather even be in bad places than in your cube. For example, the waiting line at the DMV suddenly looks pretty good. Being stuck in an elevator with that smelly guy from accounting would even be tolerable. In other words, anywhere but in your cube would be better than in your cube.
Well, that's the feeling I've been having lately, and I know I'm not the only one. And that's why I wanted to start this blog - as much as work sucks sometimes, there is humor in it, and it's an experience that almost everyone can relate to. We'll try to find the lighter side of cube life, and maybe come up with some ideas on how to survive your day/week/quarter/career. And even if you don't work in a cube, I'm sure you can relate to many of the stories that will be shared here.
One of the central themes of this blog will be about "Employee Morale" and why this concept doesn't exist in reality. Many companies pride themselves on boosting employee morale, and yet they shoot themselves in the foot trying to accomplish it. I will try to include one example in each of my work-related posts. Feel free to contribute yours.
I also want this blog to be interactive. I want you to add your comments, or email me your funny work stories. All I ask is that you keep it clean (so that others can read it at work without the internet Nazis coming down on them) and keep it relatively anonymous (no last names). If you don't want to post a comment, feel free to email me at employeemorale@gmail.com. And if I eventually decide to put some ads on here, click on them. It won't kill you, I promise. Don't be a cheapskate. Maybe someday I'll be able to get HBO with all the ad revenue. Then I can finally see what the fuss is about with the Sopranos.
One last thing - although many of you will know who the author of this blog is, I will not be using my name, mainly because I don't want to risk any retribution from my current employer. Until this blog turns into an opportunity which allows me to quit my job, I need to keep said job. Ironically, if this does somehow turn into a new career and I quit that job, I'd have lost the main source of information and humor for this blog. You can't beat Corporate. Anyway, I hope you enjoy reading these posts, and I hope you contribute to the site as well. Most of all, I hope you click on the ads that will eventually show up. And spread the word, that would help, too.
Well, that's the feeling I've been having lately, and I know I'm not the only one. And that's why I wanted to start this blog - as much as work sucks sometimes, there is humor in it, and it's an experience that almost everyone can relate to. We'll try to find the lighter side of cube life, and maybe come up with some ideas on how to survive your day/week/quarter/career. And even if you don't work in a cube, I'm sure you can relate to many of the stories that will be shared here.
One of the central themes of this blog will be about "Employee Morale" and why this concept doesn't exist in reality. Many companies pride themselves on boosting employee morale, and yet they shoot themselves in the foot trying to accomplish it. I will try to include one example in each of my work-related posts. Feel free to contribute yours.
I also want this blog to be interactive. I want you to add your comments, or email me your funny work stories. All I ask is that you keep it clean (so that others can read it at work without the internet Nazis coming down on them) and keep it relatively anonymous (no last names). If you don't want to post a comment, feel free to email me at employeemorale@gmail.com. And if I eventually decide to put some ads on here, click on them. It won't kill you, I promise. Don't be a cheapskate. Maybe someday I'll be able to get HBO with all the ad revenue. Then I can finally see what the fuss is about with the Sopranos.
One last thing - although many of you will know who the author of this blog is, I will not be using my name, mainly because I don't want to risk any retribution from my current employer. Until this blog turns into an opportunity which allows me to quit my job, I need to keep said job. Ironically, if this does somehow turn into a new career and I quit that job, I'd have lost the main source of information and humor for this blog. You can't beat Corporate. Anyway, I hope you enjoy reading these posts, and I hope you contribute to the site as well. Most of all, I hope you click on the ads that will eventually show up. And spread the word, that would help, too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)