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.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)