There is currently a heated debate raging in the HR community about whether organisations should have a Social media policy. Neil Morrison Group HR director at Random house sparked the debate by insisting that using a social media policy demonstrated a lack of trust in employees. Many have responded that it is about giving people clarity rather than being patronising.

We would agree with that view. Generally people in a work environment want boundaries – they want to know what is expected of them and where the lines are. This extends to many areas of behaviour at work, not just use of social media. Having a policy provides that guidance.

One comment made was that what you call the policy doesn’t matter; you just need to be sensible. We wholeheartedly agree with being sensible – we have been advocating a common sense approach in these blogs for a while – but actually we do think the language you use and what you call the policy makes a difference

Even using the word Policy may distance the people it is meant to relate to – “Guidelines” has less of a dogmatic ring to it. If the content is written in plain language with examples that relate to day to day activities, it will sound less legalese. It’s about ensuring it does what it says on the tin. For example, if you call a policy about appropriate behaviour “Dignity at work” (which many organisations do) does that tell people it is about appropriate behaviour or suggest it is more about equal opportunities policies?

Working a great deal with organisations in this area we were interested to see what terms our clients used – so we have been asking them. We suspected that while we call support in this area Managing Appropriate Workplace Behaviour, managers would use other terms and the results have been very interesting. Many will use the words that reflect the situation as they see it eg dealing with office banter, managing difficult people, conflict in teams. That has been a very helpful insight for us in terms of marketing our support in these areas. But it also underlines that getting the language and terms right when you communicate with your audience is key.

So we don’t agree with Neil Morrison – companies should have policies, but they should think about how to word them and how to communicate them so that they are meaningful. 

Hot on the heels of our last blog looking at the perils of employees using social media comes an incident of an employee being sacked for posting defamatory comments about their employer on Facebook.

An employee of an Apple store had written derogatory comments about Apple on his Facebook page, which were then passed to his boss by a Facebook “friend” and co worker.

He was dismissed for gross misconduct.

He bought a claim of unfair dismissal, which failed because Apple had such clear policies around the use of social media. As brand and image is so central to Apple’s success, they particularly made it clear that any derogatory remarks that damaged the brand would not be tolerated.

What Apple also did was to make sure that their policies weren’t just handed out in a document, but were also made part of the induction programme. This crystal clear communication ensured Apple could defend and protect their commercial reputation in this situation.

Once again, the lessons are

• have a clear social media policy (see our last blog for some guidance as to what to include)
• communicate it to your employees and make sure they understand it
• make sure managers are confident in dealing with breaches of any policy

The latest survey by DLA Piper in People Management highlights an area that is posing a real problem for employers – the use and misuse of social networking sites.

Many employers seem confused by the boundaries they should be setting and how to deal with behaviour they deem as unacceptable

The survey highlights how torn employers are in their attitude to social networking sites. On the one hand use of these sites can offer a valuable way of promoting brand awareness and marketing the company. On the other, its use is fraught with the dangers of negative or defamatory comments being posted and the damage that can do.

But is it really that difficult?

We have been advocating a common sense approach for while now and are delighted to see that Acas takes this line in its newly published guidelines, urging employers to “draw on norms that apply in a non virtual setting.” In other words to “treat electronic behaviour as you would treat non electronic behaviour.”

The key of course is to have clear guidelines so people understand what is acceptable and what is not.
For example, it may be fine and indeed you may encourage your employees to network to fulfil business objectives, but it probably isn’t acceptable for people to load up holiday snaps on facebook in work time. 

Over a third of employers surveyed felt that they were exposed to risks posed by comments and information posted on social networking sites.  So here are some practical steps to help ensure your organisation is protected…
• have a dedicated social media policy
• communicate to everyone in the company so they understand the boundaries
• train your managers in how to deal with situations where they suspect someone has breached the policy

Our support around developing appropriate behaviour at work  will help on each of these steps.

Acas has some great guidelines on what a policy should cover, but as a brief overview consider
• The scope – what does the policy cover?
• What is acceptable and what is not
• Monitoring of employees activity on networking sites
• Consequences of breaching the policy (link to disciplinary procedures )

Don’t leave it until you have to deal with a disciplinary issue – taking preventative action could save you a lot of time and hassle.

One of the trickiest parts of any job is having ‘difficult conversations’, whether it be with people we line manage, our own manager, a supplier or a customer. Our anxiety can be such that we employ a whole range of strategies to delay the moment when we have to sit down and talk.

I know that I have been guilty at times of prioritising tasks that are well within my comfort zone, rather than tackle a conversation that I am expecting to be challenging and uncomfortable. Yet in most instances, when I do have that conversation, it has gone much better than I anticipated and there have been positive outcomes. So why is that? Well, it comes down to three key words – preparation, preparation and preparation!

Our anxiety is often about the other person’s possible reaction. Will they get angry? Will they be upset? Will they challenge me?  With team members for example, the issue may well be something that could be taken personally – problems over performance perhaps – and the receiver’s initial response may understandably be emotional and confrontational.

That’s ok. I have realised that the most important thing is for me to be calm, objective and to be able to evidence my concerns. If I have specific relevant examples to support what I have to say, if I have thought through the range of potential responses and how I will deal with them, if I can be clear about the how we can move forward from the issues under discussion, then there is every likelihood that there will be a positive outcome. The key to success is to be as well prepared as I can be.

Whether as a line manager, with suppliers who have let us down or clients who have not delivered their agreed side of the deal, having the confidence to tackle these conversations will earn you greater respect and lead to more productive relationships.
In all cases I have fallen back on those three big words to help me through – preparation, preparation, preparation!

I have just attended the Care Management Matters Conference in Birmingham where the emphasis on outcomes in the Care sector was much debated.

Martin Green’s lively presentation made the helpful distinction between outputs and outcomes – how commissioning bodies should be focusing on the end result for service users not on the provider’s processes.

And this should apply to the services that Care Providers buy in for themselves as well as what they provide to their customers.
For example when looking at training for staff, Care home managers and owners should be demanding clear outcomes from their training provider. So much money is spent on training that may be full of good content and well delivered, but doesn’t’ actually yield any result. Such training is a waste of money.

So how do you ensure you get outcomes from your training?

• be clear about the changes you want to see
• use specific examples to help training providers understand what you want to achieve eg rather than “I want my managers to be more confident” try “I want my managers to be able to give feedback effectively and deal with performance problems earlier”
• discuss with your training provider what the best approach would be – a structured class room session is not always the best solution – what are the other options?
• demand a clear indication from your provider how they will facilitate the transfer of learning back into the workplace – an action plan is no good when it sits under a pile of papers and is never looked at again
• use the changes you identified at the beginning of the process to evaluate your training and gauge what difference it has made.

Demanding clear outcomes from your suppliers and partners will mean you invest your money wisely and will also help you deliver improved outcomes to your clients….

Head of HR at Google, Laszlo Bock announced to the New York Times last month that the company had identified that the qualities that make a good manager are not perhaps what they had initially imagined…

Google was a high performing organisation, able to select from the cream of well qualified engineers across the globe. But in 2009 they were alarmed to discover that staff turnover and exit interviews were increasingly citing ‘poor management’ as the reason for people leaving,   reinforcing the age-old HR adage that people leave their company because of their managers.
 
Google wanted to find out more about why individuals’ technical wizardry was not transferring well to the role of leading others.

In a project aptly named ‘Oxygen’, Google searched through results from staff surveys and a range of performance review data to determine what was needed to breathe new life into their organisation’s management performance.

The results they unearthed supported what many of us in learning organisations have long known - that technical expertise is fairly low on the list of qualities an employee looks for in their boss. What employees ideally want from their manager is more time spent managing and communicating, taking a consistent approach to performance management and coaching staff to support their career development.

These behaviours now make up the framework for the new management coaching system which Google launched in response to the findings. It claims this has already improved the performance of 75% of it’s managers, highlighting just how vital it is for managers everywhere to be measured on behaviour and management competence and not just technical ability.

It’s not easy being a manager – I know from personal experience.  But if January’s Management offerings are anything to go by many of us are making it harder than it needs to be. 

The high profile Sky Sports case has managers tackling a culture of inappropriate behaviour that should have been dealt with long ago and the Chief Exec at Carlisle city council is having to deal with some very heavy handed management by two of his team leaders attempting to manage performance via email. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-12307749

Perhaps on that basis we shouldn’t be too surprised that the Government think we need two years to assess if a new recruit is right for our business!  Their recommendation is to increase the qualifying period for employees before they can make a claim for unfair dismissal from one to two years. http://www.recruiter.co.uk/1008389.article?cmpid=REC04&cmptype=newsletter&email=true
The danger in my eyes is that some already lax management practices will become even laxer if managers think they have longer to make their minds up.

There are some key steps that managers should be taking to manage effectively, but often just don’t….

• Discussing and agreeing specific expectations.  The vast majority of people really welcome having clear direction
• Having regular face-to-face meetings.  How many times do you hear people saying “Communication here is rubbish”?  What they usually mean is they don’t know what their managers expect
• Noting down agreed action points and reviewing them.  Why do so many people tell us things are talked about, but never followed through or reviewed?
• We all like to know if we are on track with something.  Why do so few managers give constructive feedback?

Good managers are those who do these things and do them on a regular basis.  That way...

• They and their team members know what’s appropriate and what is not

• People know the boundaries; when to have a few minutes to show interest in someone without affecting targets and productivity
• They know if a new team member is suitable long before two years and deal with it at the right time and in the right way

   

…‘Our prehistoric banter is not acceptable in a modern world’… the public apology  from Sky Sports presenter Richard Keys having tendered his resignation,  must be resounding around many a workplace this week.  Sky leadership have been united in following the policy line on ‘unacceptable’ behaviour by firing one staff member and accepting the resignation of another -  regardless of their talent , experience or popularity.

But many employers will still remain uncertain as to what constitutes ‘acceptable’ or ‘not acceptable’ in terms of workplace ‘banter’ and therefore hesitant about dealing with it. Acas have 20,000 visits a month to download information from their website on bullying and harassment – a clear indication that managers find this area far from straightforward. And often the waters are muddied by retorts and counter arguments, in this case comments from Gray and Keys that ‘it happens everywhere’; ‘it’s just a bit of banter, a bit of the ‘old boys/ lads / locker-room ’ culture’; ‘ ‘others are in no position to judge’; “apologies have been accepted so no harm done”

But the law is clear - comments about a person’s gender reflecting on their ability to do a job are based on a prejudice not facts. So why do many managers find it so hard to deal with these incidents when they occur?

The Sky incident touches a lot of insecurities about ourselves and work.  Have we ‘lost our sense of humour’? Who wants to be seen as the one who can’t ‘take a joke’?  We want to make friends, be liked, to fit in and we may feel very uncomfortable directly challenging such behaviour for fear of being perceived as having lost our perspective? (I can’t quite bring myself to draw on Katie Hopkins astounding BBC Question Time performance on 27th Jan…)

But look at what has  come to light with the Sky case...once one ‘indiscretion ‘ had been uncovered there were suddenly examples of many more, pointing to a potential culture of sexism within the organisation that had not previously been challenged.

By ‘ignoring’ this behaviour or accepting it as harmless banter, organisations enable this culture to evolve. Sky Sports had clearly not attempted to change or challenge this behaviour and perhaps even endorsed it as part of their public image -until these incidents, (fuelled by easy exposure via social networking) were broadcast?   The fact that these behaviours were ‘never intended to be broadcast’ is a hollow mitigation and implies an element of tolerance, which should be unacceptable in today’s workplace.

Let’s hope the Sky case goes some way towards changing behind-closed-doors behaviour and acts as a wake up call to managers everywhere to deal with inappropriate workplace behaviour.