My worst interview ever, as a hiring manager in an editorial group, went perfectly… on the surface.

I didn’t know it had actually been a complete disaster until the candidate called me up two hours later. Was he calling to thank me, or had he possibly left something behind?

No. The candidate suavely asked me to dinner that evening. I stammered, “You do understand that I am the supervisor of the position you interviewed for, right?” “Oh, yes,” he replied, “but I had so much fun speaking with you that I thought you would like to go on a date with me as well as consider me for the job.”

His inappropriate actions did not win him the job — or the girl. And more importantly, it was an unmistakable wake-up call for me that I needed to adjust my interviewing skills into something more structured, and less like a friendly chat. I worked hard over the next two years to learn how to convey authority better.

A lot of hiring managers interview poorly, truth be told. For one thing, “hiring manager” isn’t a job title, it’s a role all managers have to play from time to time. They’re usually not trained to do it, and it’s a drain on what they consider their primary responsibilities.

Their interviewing offenses range from asking illegal questions about protected status, to stretching the decision out interminably, to being notoriously unstructured in their interviewing style.  Recruiting blogger Kiran Gali offers some hands-on advice on this last point in “Interview Tips for the Hiring Manager.” He writes:

Often Hiring Managers do not have a structure around their interviews. When I say structure I don’t mean the sequence of questions, but I am referring to more about the logic. For instance, not many hiring managers know about the concept of using CAR (context, action, result) or STAR (Situation, Task, Action, Result ) models which are really helpful. If the candidate says that he has been able to hit a revenue of X Rs (or $) in the very first quarter of his last job, asking context related questions such as what was the target, how well established the product is, what was the most sales done by anybody in team.

Action related questions would be something like, what did the individual do get that sales, was it any different from anyone else, what specific actions he has taken to cross sell or up sell the product. Questions related to Results center around, what percentage of total sales he contribute, was there any dip in costs related to their sales or did it cost more, did he end up exhausting the sales pipeline, has success allowed good references and hence a perennial pipeline. To put it simply, what was the context, which actions the individual took that made the difference, and how did it impact the top or bottom line.

This seems to me like a very helpful methodology that many hiring managers may not be familiar with. The same post also gives advice on hiring managers’ tendency to keep candidates on hold, the need for hiring managers to take notes throughout the interview, and on training your hiring managers to engage in company branding. Recommended reading!

“Hiring Managers Don’t Know Interview Questions,” from the Cube Rules blog, focuses on reassuring candidates that their impressions are correct: many hiring managers really don’t know what they’re doing. Don’t worry too much  about the occasional weird question, awkward silence, or meandering conversation, they say. The key, they stress, is that there are really only 3 basic interview questions that you have to answer. They all boil down to: Can you do the job? Will you love the job? And, what people do you like to work with? If you can bring anything the hiring manager asks back to this, they say, you’ll be golden. (Still, it couldn’t hurt to start training hiring managers to be more talented as interviewers!)

To help your people move toward success, check out this amazing article from CIO magazine. It’s called “The Hiring Manager Interviews,” and it is a collection of 16 interviews with high-ranking tech execs from such well-known organizations as the American Diabetes Association, Pacific Gas & Electric, Northern Trust, US Airways, Kohl’s, and many more. Highlights: exactly how Facebook’s head of technology grills applicants; how the CIO of Harvard Business School gets team buy-in by involving his whole staff; and how the CIO of Jack in the Box learned from her own hiring mistakes. It’s high-quality material that is sure to enrich the interviewing practices of anyone who takes the time to read it.

With a bit of effort and training of your management team, you can help them become great interviewers who make wise choices. As a plus to you, you’ll soon have a team of excellent interviewers available to help you make the right decisions for your organization’s staffing.

Just when you thought it was safe to walk by your co-workers’ cubicles without a blindfold, a new technological menace may be coming to a small screen near you. It took years for employer-employee etiquette to merge into manageable desktop rules regarding pornography and social Web sites. Now, “sexting” has arrived to threaten the workplace environment.

Too Much of Too Little

Speeding ever more quickly to a Blackberry or iPhone near you, accompanied by innocent chuckles:  well, you don’t really want to know.  And that’s the problem.  Too much of “too little,” as in the form of tiny but sexually explicit cell phone images and photos.  The screens may be small . . . but the pixels tell way too much of the story.

A recent story in the Workplace section of The Daily Oklahoman noted that a former waitress is suing a Hooters restaurant in Fort Lauderdale, claiming a manager used texting as a way to sexually harass her.  Well, you say  . . . that’s Hooters.  Right, and if sexual harassment were limited to places where skimpily dressed waitresses push hot wings, HR managers everywhere wouldn’t have big thick binders, training sessions and pending cases.

In the same story, a jeweler notes he handles all the potential “little device” problems by having his employees leave their cell phones in the car or the break room.  Maybe that works at a jewelry store where rings of a different sort are in order, but in most businesses, separation from cell phone is a death sentence.

False Sense of Security

Chris Pentella, in her blog, Workplace Diva, notes that sexting is recognized as a rapidly growing workplace problem in part because the technology gives users a false sense of security.  She quotes Shanti Atkins, CEO of ELT, Inc., a San Francisco firm that specializes in ethics and compliance training.

Atkins, whose firm is now offering sexual harassment training based on sexting, says it is “a huge, growing problem because the technologies are developing faster than companies can keep up.”

Mark Toth, chief legal officer for Manpower North America, says sexting is a real challenge for employers because they can’t yet monitor it, but can be held responsible for it.

“It has the potential to create significant legal risk as some employees appear to believe that texting is far more casual than e-mail or other forms of communication, employers can’t/don’t monitor it and, thus, the normal rules don’t apply — anything goes,” said Toth.

Time to Update the Manual

What’s a conscientious employer to do . . . short of confiscating phones at the door and proceeding backwards in the technology time tunnel?

Experts advise that HR managers, who are already updating their manuals to cover tweeting and instant messaging and social sites, include “sexting” as well, to eliminate loopholes like “that was just between my boyfriend and me . . . and no one else was supposed to see it.”  Oops.

Make sure employees know that texting and sexting both create a permanent record that could be used in a sexual harassment case.

You might be tempted to appeal to employees’ sense of virtue and love of Mom and apple pie, by asking them if Mom would really approve of sending nude photos or potentially misinterpreted “compliments”  over the phone.  Of course, you can’t always be sure of the answer to that one, so concrete and enforceable policies are probably a better plan.

As we get deeper into influenza season, fear of the flu in general and the H1N1 swine flu virus in particular is on the rise. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) reports that as of this week, flu activity is on the upswing, and is “widespread” in 41 states. Meanwhile, the H1N1 vaccine is limited and difficult to obtain. This is causing public reactions from “caution” to “concern.”

You may be wondering why there is so much fuss about the flu this year. Regular influenza kills as many as 36,000 Americans every year, but this year we have that problem plus the issue of swine flu, which may explode onto the scene. The 2009 H1N1 virus (a.k.a. “swine flu”) is particularly dangerous because:

• It is a new combination (made of human, swine, and avian elements) and virtually no one has natural immunity to it
• The vaccine is not yet widely available
• This strain attacks the young and healthy population in disproportionate numbers

Is your organization ready to deal with a pandemic flu? You should be planning on two different levels, advises the Pivotal HR Team blog:

So how does an organization address what could be the “Perfect Storm” as it relates to flu season?  A suggestion is to take a two-phased approach:

Phase 1 is all about Flu Prevention – Provide your employees and managers with practical tools to help prevent the transmission of the flu (seasonal and H1N1).

Phase II is all about a Business Continuity Plan – This assumes a severe flu outbreak whereby business continuity is threatened in certain markets or regions.  This phase requires that you give careful thought to how you would continue to operate under a severe labor shortage.

How can you plan for a possible crisis caused by pandemic flu? The CDC has just issued an information packet designed to help businesses plan their response to the 2009-2010 influenza season. I highly recommend that you download it at this link. It has everything from prevention information to appropriate response strategies, and is very broad in scope.

One quick fact you’ll need to know is that the CDC advises: “If you are sick with flu-like illness, CDC recommends that you stay home for at least 24 hours after your fever is gone except to get medical care or for other necessities. (Your fever should be gone without the use of a fever-reducing medicine.) Stay away from others as much as possible to keep from making others sick.”

This seems like common sense, and it is echoed by the majority of workers. In fact,  91% of Americans said that they want their co-workers to remain at home if they are infected with the H1N1 flu virus, according to a survey released this week by Mansfield Communications, Inc. If someone does report to work with the flu, 83% of the survey respondents said that they would be likely to inform a fellow colleague or senior management. The same organization ran a poll last month that found that 69% of workers said they had received no communication about policies in the workplace pertaining to H1N1.

These numbers show that people expect to have their exposure minimized to the flu… but how to accomplish this? The HR Superstar blog recently published a sample of a corporate flu policy, gleaned from a friend in another organization. It could be a good starting point for crafting your own policy, if you feel one is warranted. It follows the CDC guidelines I referenced above, and it reads:

If an employee is sick with a fever (100 degrees F or above), do not come to work. Please remain at home until the fever is below 100 degrees for 24 hours. The fever should be determined without the use of fever-reducing medications. Managers, if an employee comes to work and has flu like symptoms (fever-flushed appearance and cough or sore throat) they should be sent home and remain home until they have not had a fever (100 degrees or above) for 24 hours. If a person, that is living in the same household of an employee, has H1N1, the employee should notify their manager and stay at home for a period of 24 hours to see if they develop flu like symptoms. If the employee is able to work at home during this time, then it can be arranged. If they do not develop flu like symptoms in 24 hours, they are able to return to work. In both circumstances, the manager should notify HR Compliance of the incident.

The law and human resources blog HR Briefcase asks if people should bring doctors’ notes to HR after they have been home with the flu. The answer to this is actually “no.” The CDC recommends that employers waive this requirement during a pandemic due to strain on the healthcare system. However, each employer is allowed to follow their own policies and adapt them to the situation.

There is a great deal you can do now, before anything happens. Visit the flu.gov website for extensive materials (even some in foreign languages) to help you get your organization prepared for seasonal influenza and swine flu.

When we exhibited at HRE’s HR Technology Expo — the biggest HR tech conference in the United States — last month, we noticed something interesting. We were the only outplacement services firm there.

There’s a reason for this. RiseSmart is in the process of disrupting the $3 billion-plus corporate outplacement market by, for the first time, bringing technology to bear to reduce the industry’s cost structure, while improving service delivery. Among our innovations, we search Web-based job listings on behalf of laid-off workers to help them find jobs — something none of the big players in outplacement do currently.

We’ve been fortunate, since moving our offices from Dallas to Silicon Valley last year, to have Norwest Venture Partners (NVP) in our corner. NVP invested $3 million in Series A funding, which has helped us to grow our business to build an impressive roster of clients, including some of the most forward-thinking companies in the Fortune 500.

Now we are delighted to welcome Storm Ventures as a RiseSmart investor. We announced today an additional $4.6 million in Series A funding, including $2.8 million from Storm Ventures and $1.8 million from NVP.

In addition, Storm Ventures managing director Sanjay Subhedar will join NVP’s Venkat Mohan and myself on our company’s board of directors.

From our press release, here’s what Sanjay and Venkat say of the deal:

“RiseSmart has created a business model that promises to be a game changer in the $3 billion plus outplacement industry,” Subhedar said. “RiseSmart’s Transition Concierge is disrupting the cost structure for corporate outplacement providers, while leveraging technology to deliver superior value to a growing roster of Fortune 500 clients. “

Said Mohan: “RiseSmart has grown rapidly since NVP made its initial investment in June 2008. The company has gone the extra mile to provide an excellent customer experience to both corporate clients and transitioning workers – and that has paid off in word of mouth and new business referrals.”

I can only express my deepest gratitude in the confidence Storm Ventures and NVP have shown in RiseSmart. We don’t intend to disappoint them.

Think twice before you use Twitter to vent or blab about work: that indiscreet tweet could cost you your job.

There have been a number of incidents this year involving people using the popular microblogging site in ways that have gotten them fired. Some classic examples (including the graphic for this blog post) are covered in ResumeBear’s “Top 30 Ways to Lose a Job on Twitter.” The list is long, but includes such bone-headed moves as tweeting about sleeping with the boss’s daughter, failing a drug test, or lying to the boss.

This reminds me of the high-profile case of @theconnor, who infamously tweeted in March: “Cisco just offered me a job! Now I have to weigh the utility of a fatty paycheck against the daily commute to San Jose and hating the work.” Sure enough, a Cisco employee soon posted: “Who is the hiring manager? I’m sure they would love to know that you will hate the work. We here at Cisco are versed in the web.” While the candidate quickly made their account private, it was already too late — it had gone viral. Not only did this individual lose the offer, but they were widely ridiculed online.

The takeaway? Your material IS indexed in searches, and people are naturally curious. Mention of a company name will likely be discovered by people working at that company.

The most recent case of Twitter-induced firing is that of a Los Angeles waiter, Jon Barrett-Ingels. According to gossip blog Defamer, he was dismissed from his job after tweeting that Hung actress Jane Adams didn’t tip on her bill. (Allegedly, Barrett-Ingels had previously tweeted indiscreetly that Heroes star Ali Larter was out and about without a bra on, and described The Office castmember B.J. Novak as looking “hungover.”)

The takeaway? This person seems to have been using his proximity to fame in a gossipy and non-professional manner. While we don’t know the legalities of his particular case, it’s good to remember that whether you are dealing with a celebrity, a corporate entity, or a regular customer, your employer has the right to expect you to behave responsibly in connection with your duties. Even if you have not signed confidentiality materials (and many do), it is certainly not part of any customer service tradition to publish embarrassing information about customers.

Numbers back up these anecdotes. A Proofpoint survey from August 10, 2009, says that the state of the economy is leading to increased risk of data loss events. Employees “oversharing” through social media is a big part of the problem, they say:

Concerning social networks, US companies are also experiencing more exposure incidents involving sites like Facebook and LinkedIn as compared to 2008 (17 percent versus 12 percent). US companies are taking a much more forceful approach with offending employees — eight percent reported terminating an employee for such a violation as compared to only four percent in 2008… Even short message services like SMS texts and Twitter pose a risk. 13 percent of US companies investigated an exposure event involving mobile or Web-based short message services in the past 12 months.

Both employees and employers have a ways to go in coming up with good strategies to deal with this new form of communication. Employees should use caution and good sense in deciding what to share on Twitter, while HR (and possibly Legal or Risk Management) needs to educate employees about the risks the organization faces on Twitter due to liability and loss of reputation.

Have you ever written up or fired someone for something they admitted to on Twitter? Would you look at their Twitter feed if you received a complaint about it? Do you have a policy in place that covers employees’ tweets?

Halloween is coming soon, and whether you’re ready for it or not, your employees are already working on their costumes and buying fun-sized candy bars. It’s time for you to think about your policies for celebrating this entertaining, but potentially tricky, holiday.

This year, October 31 falls on a Saturday, so many offices will be spared dealing with the actual “day of,” but Friday afternoon is sure to be a popular time for people to celebrate with colleagues who they don’t see on weekends. Many people will be wondering if they can bring their children to the workplace (they love to show off the little ones in costume), so you should plan now whether a “family” event makes more sense for your workforce, or if an “employees only” gathering would be a better choice for your organization.

In the blog post “Watch Out for Halloween Hi-jinx,” HR blogger Susan M. Heathfield points out that office celebrations can be motivational and boost morale. However, she warns:

When employees fail to take sensitivity, diversity, and honoring differences to heart, law-breaking, morale-busting situations can occur in the office.

This may seem over-the-top — it’s just a simple kids’ holiday, some insist — but it’s HR’s job to be aware of these possibilities. With a little planning and sensitivity, there is a way to balance celebration with professionalism.

“Halloween At Your Place of Employment,” by Jennifer Loftus, delves more deeply into these issues. Loftus notes that while most people consider Halloween an innocuous holiday, some view it as genuinely occult and would object to taking part. On the other side of the coin, some pagans consider Halloween a religious holiday (and may ask for the day off). Other workers won’t have any opinion beyond Halloween being a frivolous waste of time! A good human resources worker will be ready for all these points of view, and more. Make it crystal-clear that any celebration is optional, and try to come up with some kind of time limit or activity window to focus the celebration so the whole day is not lost.

Beyond the realm of personal beliefs, Halloween opens up all kinds of legal concerns due to wild costuming and play-acting behavior. For instance, fake weapons and mock violence can be frightening to bystanders, and can even call up ambiguous messages regarding the serious issue of workplace violence. Between the party atmosphere and the strange attire, it is definitely NOT a day for HR to take off. You’ll want to have issued some kind of policy beforehand, and then you’ll want to be on the scene to (nicely) enforce it.

The Wall Street Journal takes on the issue of costumes in “Beware of Workplace Horrors: Office Halloween Do’s and Don’ts“:

Employers will probably want to lay down the ground rules beforehand when it comes to costumes, said Michael Karpeles, head of the labor and employment group at Goldberg Kohn, a Chicago-based law firm. “It’s OK to allow people to dress up, but I think that companies should let their employees know that certain types of costumes are not appropriate – if they’re especially revealing, for example,” he said. Also shy away from disturbing, horror costumes or ones with religious themes that might rub co-workers the wrong way. And remember, office policies such as those regarding sexual harassment don’t take a holiday at work events.

For more on this topic, check out “Costumes at Work? Avoid Liability Nightmare at Halloween.” Steve Miller, a partner at Fisher & Phillips, a national labor and employment law firm, writes: “Costumes that are sexually provocative, carry a political or social message, or are otherwise simply inappropriate for interacting with colleagues and clientele, could lead to a liability nightmare for employers.” Some of his top tips for HR professionals to have a successful Halloween holiday are:

• Clearly communicate costume guidelines in advance. If employers opt to allow costumes on Halloween, they should send an e-mail or memo beforehand reminding employees that they are permitted to do so, but must use good taste and judgment.
• Rewind the clock to last Halloween. Think about any feedback the company received from employees or customers last year. If the majority of the staff opted out of dressing up, perhaps the company should re-evaluate whether costumes are a fit for the company culture. If the holiday went smoothly and most people participated, it may be a positive celebration for the company.
• Offer alternative celebrations. Companies should create a program that works for everyone. Rather than a policy of we’re dressing up in costumes and you don’t have to participate if you don’t want to, host a company potluck or luncheon where staff can still celebrate Halloween with something fun.

What is your workplace planning this Halloween? Are you doing anything special in terms of a party or a costume contest? Are you planning on issuing any kind of guidelines? We’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments.

Recruiters: everyone loves to get a phone call from one, but once that phone call is over, a LOT of people will go on to say how much they “hate” recruiters. I’ve always been aware of this odd biting-the-hand-that-feeds-you phenomenon, but earlier this month, Ian Lenehan wrote a post called “Why does everyone hate recruiters?” that really got me thinking. Lenehan, an Australian recruitment consultant, told an anecdote of being embarrassed to admit his own job in a social setting. He went on to blog:

Recruitment is a valuable profession — everybody needs recruiters whether they like it or not. But unfortunately many people claim to hate recruitment consultants. Like car salesmen and real estate agents (hey, we need those guys too). Even recruiters engage in rec con baiting. Agency recruiters hate in house recruiters, and everybody hates rec to recs. So why is this?

Good question. It got me wondering: does everyone hate recruiters? I plugged the relevant words into Google, and the results were pretty disheartening. Evil HR Lady did a 3-part posting series on why she hates ‘em (she was partially kidding). Less playfully, an anonymous someone has created a Facebook page under the name “I Hate Recruitment Consultants,” which is mostly filled with unflattering jokes.  Someone else went to the trouble of setting up a blog called I Hate Recruiters on Blogspot. It reads, in part:

• Don’t you hate recruiters who try to push you into jobs that are not right for you just so they can make a few bucks?
• Don’t you hate recruiters who say they’ll call you back and don’t?
• Don’t you hate recruiters who claim to be experts but don’t understand what you do?

Clearly, some people have had bad experiences. But people have bad professional experiences all the time, and don’t go out of their way to create blogs denigrating entire professions. Where does this hate come from?

Lenehan, in his blog post, opines that a job change is an ultra-sensitive time in one’s life — a huge change — and any bad moments are thrown into especially high contrast. Fair enough.

My own suspicions revolve around the middleman nature of the job. The recruiter stands between people, by necessity. This is actually a service, but when jobseekers and hiring managers are frustrated, they focus on the limiting factor of having a middleman, when they should be counting their blessings that the recruiter saves them from having to meet and screen everyone. People who need jobs (or need to fill jobs) can be very stressed out, and anything that they perceive to be slowing them down can be a target. Recruiters control access to people, and access to jobs, and this seems to tap into people’s control issues in a very tangible way.

Add in a payment structure that is performance-based, and people start to bash the very recruiters that hook them up with jobs.

I checked in with a few popular HR bloggers to get some more thoughts on this trend of bashing the recruitment profession. There’s a real difference between people just hating recruiters (like the person who made the Facebook page) and actual recruiters tackling the profession’s image. The well-known Jim Stroud at The Recruiters’ Lounge has an oldie-but-a-goodie up called “6 reasons to hate recruiters, 3 ways to get revenge and 1 way to keep everyone happy.” I’ll let you click through to read all 10 tips, but two of my favorite points here are:

• Managers hate recruiters because they are after their best people (and it took forever to get the team just right.)
• Ego-geeks hate having to use a recruiter to find work because (they feel) that it is an admission of weakness. (After all, shouldn’t all companies be beating down their door to hire them?)

Finally, I came across a very good post that is brutally honest about why some people have problems with the profession. In 10 Things to Hate About Recruiters, Jeremy Sisemore, president of a recruiting firm, compiled this list of things people sincerely complain about in the recruiting profession:

10. “Recruiters don’t seem to truly understand the role they are recruiting for or that much detail about the client’s needs.”
9. “I am not sure if the post-interview feedback is honest or I don’t get feedback at all.”
8. “Recruiters don’t want to help or talk with me if I am not a perfect fit for their open search assignments.”
7. “Most headhunters don’t return my calls or acknowledge that I applied for a job.”
6. “As a hiring manager, I hate when recruiters sling resumes at me and don’t take the time to understand my needs.”
5. “Dishonesty about a position, company, or the requirements for a role”
4. “Some form of discrimination or even reverse discrimination”
3. “Recruiters seem unethical and will do anything to make a placement; their tactics to recruit or develop accounts are dishonest.”
2. “I feel like job postings are not real jobs some time, the Bait and Switch.”
1. “Recruiters are only working for the company and aren’t looking out for my best interest through the Offer Stage.”

Now, I feel like we’re getting somewhere. Recruiters, what do you think about these prejudices and misconceptions? What would you like to share about what you do?

Just slip out the back, Jack
Make a new plan, Stan
You don’t need to be coy, Roy
Just get yourself free
Hop on the bus, Gus
You don’t need to discuss much
Just drop off the key, Lee
And get yourself free

– Paul Simon

One of those job interview questions that candidates fear the most (right after, “What’s your greatest weakness?”) concerns their current — or most recent — job.

“Why do you want to leave your current job?” or “Why did you leave your last job?” are both fraught with peril, as they can lead you into negative territory, which is never a good place to be during an interview.

But you have to provide a substantive answer. “Made a new plan, Stan” won’t cut it.

Maybe you want to leave your current job because there are no remaining challenges, no way for you to progress further in the company. 

Maybe you lost your job because your company downsized; no shame in that, especially in this economy.

Regardless of why you left (or want to leave) your old job, your No. 1 goal should be to convince the interviewer that your commitment to the new position is 100 percent.  You are ready to go above, beyond and into the future.

But what if you did something you shouldn’t have — like just walked out on your old job?  Did a “Jack” move and just slipped out the back?

According to Lisa Rosendahl, who addressed this question recently in her HR blog, Simply Lisa, this is the time to be very honest:

You walked off a job and there really isn’t a way to sugar coat this at all. You have to disclose this in an interview and when doing so, be prepared to address a question that may be largely unspoken, ‘what makes me think that she won’t do the same if I hire her here?’

Rosendahl says to be prepared to explain all the circumstances and offer assurances that you won’t do the same with the new employer.  The door isn’t closed, but the interviewer is “looking for actions that show a sense of responsibility, initiative, and professionalism in the face of adversity.”

If you haven’t left your current job, you still have time to make sure you do it right.  Doing so can be a bonus in your interview, according to Andrew  G. Rosen, author of The Exit Guide:  How to Leave a Job the Right Way.

Leaving a job is an art form — one that most people will never perfect.  Why?  Because it’s something we only do a handful of times in our lives.  Practice is not an option.  That’s why it is imperative to get it right.

According to the exit guide, there’s an orderly process to a successful departure, including a proper way to say goodbye, write a resignation letter, gather references, and even clean out your desk.  There’s also an art to keeping in touch with those for whom and with whom you have worked.

So, before you drop off the key, Lee, you might consider laying the groundwork for a successful transition.

Even in good times, some employers use fear tactics against their employees, but a recent study shows that the problem is growing significantly as the economy continues to falter. This is discouraging and hurtful to individual employees, of course, but it is also detrimental to the overall health of an organization. In short, no good can come of using fear-based management, and yet it persists.

The recent press release “National Study Finds Employee Trust Sacrificed in the Financial Crisis” really opened my eyes. It covers a national study of leadership funded by the University of Phoenix, where researchers realized earlier this year that the financial crisis created a unique opportunity to test out managerial “fear theories” in near real time. They did the research over this summer, and published this autumn.

The results are dismaying, but not surprising. Belligerent behavior and eroding employee trust are two of the top leadership trends in the financial crisis, according to researchers Dr. Ruby Rouse and Dr. Richard Schuttler. Employees repeatedly described threatening communications such as:

• “Be thankful you have a job.”
• “You can be replaced.”
• “There are lots of qualified people on the street who would love your job.”

In good times or bad, fear is a lazy approach to managing people — and a counterproductive one. It makes employees feel disposable and intimidated rather than valued. It also hurts an organization’s effectiveness even more than it hurts employee feelings.

In an article titled “Fear is the organization killer,” Sam Smith wisely comments:

The truth is that way too many American companies today act as though their employees are some combination of robot and peasant foot soldier… For all the talk we’ve heard over the last generation about flattened org charts and mining employees for wisdom and cross-functional, empowered teams and cultivating learning organizations, many people still work in places where orders flow from top to bottom, where there’s precious little communication flow up the ladder, and where the value of an idea is judged by the title of the originator. One of the artifacts of this kind of organization is that it’s very good at fostering fear.

Many managers attempt to use fear as a motivational tool, Smith points out. And as the economy worsens, external factors can drive fear, no matter how good the workplace and the managers might be. He continues:

Regardless of the cause, though, fear is the enemy of engagement. Workers driven by fear may be good at toeing the line and obeying the company’s list of Thou Shalt Nots (in fact, this is probably what they’re best at), but humans instinctively seek to escape the causes of fear, and if you’re tense and seeking release, you aren’t putting your heart and soul into your work. Fear dampens creativity and it motivates a variety of behaviors that are antithetical to the company’s best interests.

In addition, fearful workers instinctively seek to bend any source of power to a personal advantage instead of investing it in the good of the organization. They use their ability, their influence, their leverage and their knowledge of the organization to weave for themselves a cocoon that will hopefully shield them from the source of their fear.

Have you seen examples of management, in these stressful times, falling back on fear-based tactics? What is the best way to keep the focus on engagement, rather than fear, in the current economy? We would love to hear your feedback from the front lines.

RiseSmart had a wonderful experience at the HR Technology Conference & Expo in Chicago two weeks ago, and we’re very excited to be exhibiting at HR Southwest this week at the Fort Worth Convention Center, Oct. 14-16, Booth 721.

RiseSmart was the only outplacement services provider to exhibit at the HR Technology Expo — which speaks to one of our key differentiators compared to the “big boys” in the $5 billion outplacement industry.

Namely, we understand technology, and we use it to help our corporate clients’ laid-off employees find jobs faster. That’s a win-win for both our clients and their transitioning workers.

Come visit us at HR Southwest this week to learn more about the RiseSmart difference — and how we’re shaking up the way outplacement is done.