HR . . . A Friend in Need OR A Friend Indeed ! ?

Where employees see HR personnel as a devil’s advocate (devil refers to management here), and management presumes HR to serve them as an advisory, HR is always expected to play with this double – edged sword effectively. And here comes the most difficult role of walking along the tight rope of managing expectations. This funambulism does not come easy to all, and needs to be acquired/developed. However amidst all this, HR feels trapped in a dilemma whether to be sociable with the employees, or to always keep the ‘professional’ approach in dealing with the staff.

There are 2 perspectives to this theory: (a) The HR Angle (b) The Employee Angle. We shall look at both from the HR point of view here.

Let’s first take the HR personnel’s angle. First and foremost argument I would like to make here is that “HR Personnel are people too.” They too are individuals who seek a confidante amongst people with whom they spend 8-9 hours in a day. HR people too are individuals who walk in with emotions much alike any other employee.

But again, they have a job to do, of ensuring discipline and managing conflicting-interest situations. They have no option but to fear such predicament, because a true HR professional should not be affected by personal biases and prejudices. Better safe than sorry! You undertake a risk of being misquoted, as what you have said or done in personal capacity or as a joke might be perceived as an act by an “HR” of the organisation.

However, it is also necessary to keep yourself approachable, since employees need to feel free to talk about their issues to the HR. Most of the times, what they just require is a good listener. Also, it helps HR understand the culture and systems prevalent in the organisation. It thus becomes imperative for an HR professional to be able to clearly distinguish between personal and professional effects in a relationship. If one cannot do so, he/she must refrain from friendships on a personal level with the colleagues. It is essential to understand that organisational commitments have precedence over personal bias.

Looking at this from an Employee’s Perspective, where some people fear coming in close quarters with HR, some employees purposefully connect with you. Very starkly, we can see employees being very conscious of what they say/do when HR is around. You find them abruptly changing the topic of conversations, or hush when HR unexpectedly appears in the scene; may be because they feel that HR is always judgemental.

Often, ‘being friends’ with the HR is seen as an option by the employees, not by choice but by compulsion. They do take extra efforts to ‘update’ / ‘inform’ HR occasionally about their achievements, especially when it’s something beyond the demands of their role. Well, some employees see to it that they make the so-called ‘true’ friendships with HR, with the sole anticipation of extracting confidential information that HR is expected to have. These are the testing times for HR. For a mature HR professional, difficult here is not that he/she needs to choose the organisation over friendship; but to not choose friendship over job commitments. It requires strong will, risk-bearing ability and clear professional & personal goals, making emotional stress a part of routine.

All said and done, it is absolutely indispensable for HR to be friendly with the employees. Being social with colleagues outside office might be a riskier option, nonetheless they always need to be aware that every move they make or every word they say, must be well-thought upon to measure the consequences. Performing a balancing act during the working hours also becomes elemental. While keeping the ‘human element’ in our profession alive, we sometimes need to forget that we too are human beings with emotional needs, we too have issues that we need to share with ‘friends’, we too need to enjoy and spend some casual moments with colleagues without calculating costs and risks that we might have to bear. May be we need to change the very definition of “FRIENDSHIP” that otherwise applies to us in the outside world. . .

- VAISHALI PARGAONKAR

Good Performance v/s Bad Behaviour

"Congrats! Mr. A, you have been promoted to a Manager!"

Mr. A has 12 years of work experience and is known as a devoted and hard working individual. A performer at his work, Mr. A has many achievements to his credit and has progressed from an execution role to a managerial role.

Performing as an individual is very different than performing in a team. And especially when you are leading & managing a team, a person requires different set of skills and competencies. A person may be good at executing activities on his own, but getting work done from people might not come so easy.

Going back to Mr. A, he has been awarded as the "Best Performer of the Year", has been appreciated enough in his appraisals and is the apple of the eye of the top management. Mr. A follows certain rules of a manager that most at his level do. He believes in empowering his team, but at the same time follows a ‘school-teacher with a stick in hand’ approach. His leadership style can be categorized as directive and traditional.

So are his subordinates convinced with his style of management?

Mr. A is resolute on getting results from his team. Hence smallest of errors made by the subordinate become a big issue to be dealt with. He wants his team to be as perfect in work as he is. After all, his performance will not shine if the subordinates don't obtain the desired results. Being impulsive and very straight forward, like Mr. A appreciates good work of his subordinates promptly, he also sometimes loses his cool over his subordinates mistakes and yells at them without realizing that everybody else is also listening. Instead of taking the latter to a secluded place for counseling, he loses patience and unintentionaly creates an embarrassing situation for the subordinate. And this does not end in a minute or a two, but becomes a 10-15 minute ordeal for the subordinate.

Mr. A sometimes doesn’t even care to make sure whether the error is actually done, and passes a judgmental statement at the subordinate, who ends up justifying for an offence never committed. He also gets a bit personal, so much so, that Mr. A actually forgets the mistake in question and sounds like a spouse taunting the other for all the flaws he has figured out in his entire lifetime.

Well, the result of the same turns out to be expected -- subordinates body language in front of other colleagues changes for the rest of the day, he/she feels highly embarrassed and de-motivated, sometimes even sheds a tear or a two when the going gets tough. And often you see this subordinate smiling his way to glory, relaxed and all enthusiastic when Mr. A is not around. He seems to be more productive when the bullying boss is not in vicinity.

Now let’s see what is Mr. A's behaviour with the rest of the colleagues. Mr. A shares a good rapport with his colleagues being extrovert by nature, and is respected by all for his work, helpful and friendly nature. However, he is famous for being cynical and sarcastic and spreads this kind of culture amongst all. After all, you give back what you get, especially when it is comments that you do not enjoy listening to. Mr. A sounds tyrannical at times, is rude and tries to shield his sarcasm with humour, but obviously does not succeed at all times. The outcome of his nasty, teasing and hurtful jokes results in employees hitting on each other for every small thing. Many instances have ended up in conflicting situations when some employee on that day chooses to not ignore the hurtful remarks but take necessary action and revolt against such behavior. The workplace then becomes like a warfront where the ammunition most used are devastating words.

So, I keep wondering about this Good Performance v/s Bad Behaviour. Definitely, Mr. A is a bully at the workplace, but he also is a good performer. Active bullying is manifested through clear evidences, but passive bullying where the person does not actually seem like a tormenter but acts like a slow poison, is difficult to deal with. You cannot even ignore it and you can’t even complain about it.

So what is the plight of the subordinate???

• The verbal and emotional abuse results in loss of productivity

• Increase in level of absenteeism

• Emotional stress to deal with

• Lack of team-work

• Reduced efficiency and increased errors due to fear

What results in such bullying behavior by the boss?

• Aggression and passion to perform

• Personal nature and temperament

• Impulsiveness / lack of tolerance power

• Newly acquired managerial responsibilities and the resulting pressure to perform

• Lack of communication skills

• Lack of leadership and team handling skills

According to a study by the Employment Law Alliance in 2008, almost half of all employees have been targeted by a bully boss. The study also revealed the following:

• 81 percent of bullies are managers.

• 50 percent of bullies are women and 50 percent are men.

• 84 percent of targets are women.

• 82 percent of targets ultimately lost their job.

• 95 percent of bullying is witnessed.

MY QUESTION:

1. As an HR what should be done to curtail such behavior to protect the victim as well as improve the culture of the organization?

2. If the bullying boss is a performer and contributor, should such behavior (keeping in mind that the boss is not a crude or raging bully, but subtle bully) be ignored? If not, what strategy needs to be used to counsel the boss, such that he does not get demotivated but at the same time takes corrective action for his conduct?

- VAISHALI PARGAONKAR