By Bill Catlette
Early in my career as an HR professional I learned the
mantra of all good HR people: Whatever you do, you
must ensure that employees are treated fairly and
consistently. The operative term was fairly AND (not
or) consistently. It's a mindset that stuck with me for
a long time, and I really never thought about it very
hard. Oh, there were those occasional episodes when
doing the fair thing seemed about to collide with
consistency (or common sense), but somehow it was
always possible to wiggle or rationalize just enough to
make things come out, or so I thought. Years later,
usually after a conversation with some overly explicit
line manager who found it necessary to remind me
what idiots we HR people were, I began to plumb the
murky depths of this 'fair and consistent doctrine' a
bit further. What I found was, well, in a word,
bothersome.
Working principally at firms with an avowed desire to
remain union-free provided regular feeding for the
consistency side of this equation. Much of our work
after all was guided by the then prevailing dogma
which suggested that the best way to remain union-
free was to act like you already had one. Translation -
treat everybody the same, no matter what.
One day back then, I found my boss, the company's
Director of Labor Relations (where did we get
those job titles anyhow?) in a totally ballistic
state. A pretty cool character hardened by the
Marines, and regular skirmishes with one union or
another, it was unusual to find him in this condition
so I asked what was the matter. It seems that he
had just encountered one of the company's co-
founders, a guy named Henry, walking aimlessly
through the office handing out $50 bills to long
service employees whom he recognized. Nothing
terribly scientific or well planned, just a guy trying to
recognize those who had served faithfully for many
years.
My boss, a guy named Lou, pulled the offending
founder aside and pointed out that he couldn't just
walk around the office singling out employees for
these on-the-spot bonuses. After all, what he gave
to one he must give to everybody. He must be
consistent, because to do otherwise would bring into
play that other word that starts with "f"... favoritism.
(I know what you were thinking, and it's not nice.)
Though he was very good at winning representation
elections (and a great guy to work for), Lou had a
habit of doing other things that pretty well
guaranteed that he had reached the zenith of his
career with the company. Telling a co-founder what
he could and couldn't do with his company was one
of those things.
Henry's reaction was to 1) remind him of their
respective links in the food chain and 2) furnish him
with a note that, when taken to the CFO, would
equip him with enough cash to similarly reward any
(and every) employee who even dreamt of
complaining about the disparate treatment. From that
day on, with a special cylinder lock freshly installed
on his office door, Lou kept a drawer full of $50's for
such an occasion. After all, even if the founder had
been a little premature and unstructured in launching
his version of the employee service award program,
we were going to be consistent, by golly.
Fair and consistent - are they worthy guideposts in
the everyday world of managerial decision making?
You betcha. Do problems arise in trying to be at once
both 'fair' and 'consistent'? You betcha again.
What is 'fair' anyhow? It kinda depends on whom you
ask, and what the circumstances are, doesn't it?
Some would say that to be fair is to be just. Maybe.
Go ask some of Johnny Cochran or Bob Bennett's
clients if they want justice (fairness). My bet is
that's about the last thing many of them want.
Freedom would be a bit more attractive to them than
a scrupulously fair trial. Think of the conundrum the
US went through in trying to 'fairly' decide the
outcome of the 2000 presidential election. Yuck!
I looked the word up in my dictionary (Webster's
Collegiate - 10th Edition) and didn't get much help
there, either. On one hand it uses terms like
impartiality, honesty, and free from self-interest.
Then, it suggests that fairness is a matter
of "conforming with the established rules", however
egregious or nonsensical they may be. I'm starting to
get, in addition to a headache, a pretty good idea
where the 'consistent' part of the doctrine came
from. Since 'fair' is so damned difficult to figure out,
maybe we oughta just be consistent. It's sooooo
much easier. Just ask any parent who has at least 2
kids.
I'd like to take a stab at this conundrum, for better or
worse. It seems reasonable to say that people like
(and deserve) to be treated with some element of
consistency. More specifically, unless we're the ones
on the receiving end of some undeserved preferential
consideration, we get upset when, under like
circumstances, we don't get treated like the next
guy. If my neighbor and I are each on the way home
from work, doing 15 mph over the speed limit, and we
both get pulled over for speeding, I'd like to believe
that the ticket and fine we both get is the same. If I
find that he got off and I was ticketed and fined
$120, I may be happy for him, but I'm perturbed by
the lack of consistency. Alternatively, if I'm on the
way to work and he's on the way to the nearest
hospital, transporting his mother who is suffering
chest pains, I can see my way around the fact that
our circumstances are not the same.
Quite frankly my concern is that, in an attempt to
idiot-proof managerial decision making and ward off
claims of favoritism, too often we have taken the
easy way out and opted for 'consistency', when the
use of a modicum of judgment (faulty as it
occasionally is) would, over time, yield a better
outcome. The same could perhaps be said for our
precedent-based judicial system.
Following are a few acts of preventive maintenance
we think will serve your organization well:
1. On the premise that policies are, by definition,
things that encourage us to be consistent, we should
periodically examine them, for fairness, utility,
reasonableness, and clarity. Here's a thought - On a
regular (at least annual) basis, take a hard look at
your policy manual. Whether it's a book, booklet, or
just a file of papers shoved in a drawer somewhere,
pull that sucker out and examine it. Treat this
exercise just like your physician does your annual
physical. First thing, put it on your handy Pitney
Bowes postage scale and weigh it (for real). If we're
talking pounds instead of ounces, kilos instead of
grams, or if the thing has inexplicably gained weight
over the past year, we've got the makings of a
problem, don't we?
2. Continuing with the physical exam, check the
document's cholesterol level. Ask a few people with
about an 8th grade reading comprehension level to
read it over, and then check for comprehension. (No,
you don't have to actually mention to these folks
that they are participating in an idiot-proofing
exercise.) If, like a lot of organizations, you've got
lawyers actively involved in drafting or reviewing
policy, the thing may more closely resemble a car
rental contract (did you ever actually read every
word - front and back on one of those things?) than
something that is supposed to be a management tool.
If what you see doesn't pass the smell test for
simplicity, insist that it be rewritten.
3. Next, look at the overall context of the contents.
Do they serve to define a few core principles the
organization feels strongly about, or instead, to
virtually shut off managerial thinking. By way of
example, I knew it was time to leave my last
employer when a Sr. VP explained to me (with a
straight face) that unless a corporate policy
expressly indicated that an individual could exercise
judgment in a given matter, then their gray matter
was not to be engaged in the issue. My thoughts
turned instantly to the wonderful training film, Brain
Power, starring John Houseman wherein he
admonishes managers that "You get paid to think."
Thankfully, I soon found the courage to tell 'Mr.
Empowerment' that my talents would henceforth be
used elsewhere.
4. Now, get specific. Look hard, real hard for the
stinkers that just don't make sense any more. Travel
& Entertainment and Compensation/Benefit Policies
and Programs are a great place to start. I frequently
tell a story in speeches about the T&E policy one of
our clients has. Since you happen to be sitting in the
cheap seats at the moment you won't hear it, but
the upshot of this organization's travel policy is that
all (repeat, ALL) meal expenditures must be receipted
via an American Express chit in order to be
reimbursed. Unless you happen to be an American
Express shareholder, think about the sheer lunacy of
that little jewel for a moment. My bet is they wind up
paying for a lot of steaks when all the person really
wanted was a hotdog from a street vendor who didn't
accept plastic.
Folks, that's it for this issue of Fresh Milk. Stay cool,
stay sensible, and stay tuned.