Whenever one is in a leadership position, whether it is a formal position or one of informal leadership, there is an element of accountability that has to be considered. How is an informal leader accountable? Well, in the case of almost any organization, anyone to whom others look for direction and advice must be able to be accountable to the organization for what they tell others. If for instance, a senior police officer in my agency told a new rookie that it is permitted for him to do something that would violate a person's civil rights, who is at fault? Certainly the rookie is responsible for his own actions and is supposed to know what can and cannot be done, but if the senior officer told the rookie to do something he himself thought was permitted, the senior officer has failed the rookie, the organization, and the community by not knowing the law as he should. Unfortunately, many new employees of any organization don't know who is a good resource and who isn't. The learning curve in those circumstances can be very long and potentially career ending. Just because one has time in the agency doesn't make one a good leader.
When we think of leadership we think if the formal leaders: the CEO, the division manager, the store supervisor, anyone who has formal authority to make decisions and direct people in order to accomplish tasks. Those leaders can make or break those individuals with how they make decisions and deal with company and employee issues. Anyone can take care of the routine issues covered in policy and SOP; it is the unusual circumstance that shows the true colors of the leader. I know many supervisors who know policy and SOP yet can't relate to people and won't make a decision if it isn't specifically covered in some written directive. When those supervisors aren't willing to make the decision and stand by it, the rank and file lose respect and confidence in that supervisor. If that happens, the supervisor becomes impotent in many ways because the line people will find ways to circumvent the normal chain of command to get things done. That leader has failed the organization by not being able to make decisions and lead in his or her area of responsibility, and has failed those under him or her by not being able to instill confidence in their ability to lead.
So, what do we do with those who fail? Is this an automatic out the door situation with no regard to the energy and expense already invested in that person? I think it depends on the reasons for the failure. If the leader has demonstrated no concern for the organization and is obviously in it only for what they can get out of the position, I don't think they can be salvaged and should be sent packing for the good of the organization and those who do want what is best. If the leader has failed due to a lack of training, they may still be able to be an asset to the organization by giving them better tools to do their job and making sure they are adequately educated into the values and mission of the organization.
The employee who is promoted due to longevity alone is not necessarily going to be the best person to have in a formal leadership position. Their leadership skills are sometimes based on personality, charisma, and the ability to lead by example. They are the ones who "walk the walk, and talk the talk" but don't want anything to do with discipline and giving orders. Those are the very ones we want to keep in place as examples of good work and positive attitudes; we want new employees to see that they can be productive and still enjoy their work. However, when placed in formal supervisory positions those very same informal leaders can become bitter and resentful toward their supervision for forcing them to do things they aren't comfortable doing, and aren't equipped to do well. In these cases, the organization now has failed their employees and must make a decision on how to fix the mistake. There would be no shame in allowing the newly promoted supervisor to go back to being what he or she did best: doing good work and helping fellow employees work better too. It seems though that bosses don't want to admit they promoted the wrong person and instead of allowing a graceful return to the previous position, they will just transfer the new supervisor to another area of the company to "develop them." This will more than likely just compound the problem and frustrate the supervisor more. The line employees will also become disenchanted with the situation as they know there is one among them who could have done the job better, but now may not get the chance since the supervisory position has been filled.
Organizations and leaders within them fail for a number of reasons such as: failure to recognize good work, not keeping up with training opportunities, not compensating workers adequately, not giving them adequate work environments, etc. These are all ways failure can take place and have an impact on employee morale and work satisfaction. However, it seems that the way employees are impacted the hardest is when it is personal. If a leader is not providing competent and confident leadership, employees allow that to affect their view of the organization as a whole. If a supervisor is harsh and fails to do more than is required, or only does enough to get by, employees will resent them and productivity will fall because nothing is being done to remedy the situation. Top leadership will fail when they don't want to disrupt the status quo because doing the right thing is not the easy thing to do.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
When Employees Can't Read English
Whenever the topic of non-English speaking employees comes up, my first reaction is to get my hackles up and start with the, "If they want to work in America, they should learn to talk like an American!" Then I start to think a little (imagine that!) and recognize that for the ones who are here legally, some allowances should be made to help them assimilate into our society. I still believe that if one wants to be here and work in our country, one should learn to speak with at least a minimal level of the English language in order to get along. There are a multitude of English as a Second Language classes offered by both private and public agencies, as well as non-profit organizations, and I believe it is incumbent on the immigrant to take the initiative to seek those opportunities that have been provided. The immigration issue has become such an integral part of our current culture that there is very little reason, with a minimal level of effort, any new immigrant couldn't get information they need to begin the process of assimilation.
One of the major issues that is created when non-English speaking individuals are hired to work in a predominately English speaking business, is how to make it possible for them to communicate with other employees. When multiple immigrants are hired they have a tendency to stay to themselves for the obvious reasons. What happens then is that the English speaking employees do not interact with them and divisions are created in the organization. There is already an element of distrust in our society with regard to the growing immigrant population and having segregated groups of employees does nothing to reduce that distrust. However, until something is done to bridge that gap, people of any nationality will naturally gravitate to what is familiar and comfortable. Another sticking point is that American industry has to spend many dollars in creating bi-lingual documents, signs, and placards to inform non-English speakers in such areas as labor law and safety concerns to name just two.
In addition to signs and placards, translators have to be on hand to help make sure directions are communicated properly between English and non-English speaking employees. If a company is lucky, there may be someone already employed who has the proper bi-lingual skills to facilitate this. However, now the incumbent bi-lingual employee may be looking at a possibility that his or her transfer or promotion options just became limited by their own skills. If there is no other person who can take the original translator's position, they will either have to train someone to take over, or lobby for someone to be hired. In either case, it will take time to accomplish either of those tasks and the incumbent may be stuck for a while.
From the HR director's point of view the issue is multi-faceted. If I can't refuse to hire non-English speakers because being able to speak English is not a BFOQ for the job, I now have to consider hiring someone who can at least take care of making sure company documents are properly translated and disseminated. They may also have to be trained to conduct any of the job related training required to get a new employee competent for their job. Now I have to either hire someone with experience in my industry, or provide that training which will take time and further reduce the ROI from having the skilled translator.
Now that I have hit on some of the "bad" stuff with regard to what happens when employees can't read English, what about the positive aspects of the immigration issue? Positive aspects you say? Why of course, there is always a silver lining when you want to look for it. If we have an influx of people who don't speak our language, and we need to get people out there who can speak the foreign language, what do we have to do? Train them! How do we train them? We hire people, or buy books, DVDs, CDs, etc., or send employees to school to get them trained to be able to facilitate the communication process. Why is that such a good thing? Because it has created a new niche for those who are able to take advantage of their language skills and in America we are all about free enterprise. Just in government service for example, people have to be hired to identify ways to reach out to residents in order to educate them on basic rules for living in a specific jurisdiction. Translators are hired by the courts to help defendants and witnesses understand the judicial process. And people are available to police officers via the telephone to translate at scenes of crimes, traffic stops, or other emergencies to deal with immediate language barriers.
The issue of how to deal with employees who can't read, much less speak, English is so complicated because it impacts every aspect of our society. Everything from social interaction, multi-cultural bias, language/communication issues and fiscal considerations are on the table to be addressed. We as a nation have long ago gotten past the point of being able to say, "If they can't speak English, it's their problem not mine." It is here and we have to recognize the need to educate ourselves on the issues. It is also a very precious opportunity we have as a people. How can we not do what we can to welcome those who are here to make a better life for themselves? Most of us in this country who consider ourselves American wouldn't be here if someone in our ancestry didn't get on a boat and stand in line at Ellis Island so they could provide a better life for their family. This is a two way street though; the immigrant cannot just come here and expect to be taken care of. Nor can government ignore the issue and force immigrants to live in isolation. Both sides of this have to be willing to work together for the benefit of the society at large.
One of the major issues that is created when non-English speaking individuals are hired to work in a predominately English speaking business, is how to make it possible for them to communicate with other employees. When multiple immigrants are hired they have a tendency to stay to themselves for the obvious reasons. What happens then is that the English speaking employees do not interact with them and divisions are created in the organization. There is already an element of distrust in our society with regard to the growing immigrant population and having segregated groups of employees does nothing to reduce that distrust. However, until something is done to bridge that gap, people of any nationality will naturally gravitate to what is familiar and comfortable. Another sticking point is that American industry has to spend many dollars in creating bi-lingual documents, signs, and placards to inform non-English speakers in such areas as labor law and safety concerns to name just two.
In addition to signs and placards, translators have to be on hand to help make sure directions are communicated properly between English and non-English speaking employees. If a company is lucky, there may be someone already employed who has the proper bi-lingual skills to facilitate this. However, now the incumbent bi-lingual employee may be looking at a possibility that his or her transfer or promotion options just became limited by their own skills. If there is no other person who can take the original translator's position, they will either have to train someone to take over, or lobby for someone to be hired. In either case, it will take time to accomplish either of those tasks and the incumbent may be stuck for a while.
From the HR director's point of view the issue is multi-faceted. If I can't refuse to hire non-English speakers because being able to speak English is not a BFOQ for the job, I now have to consider hiring someone who can at least take care of making sure company documents are properly translated and disseminated. They may also have to be trained to conduct any of the job related training required to get a new employee competent for their job. Now I have to either hire someone with experience in my industry, or provide that training which will take time and further reduce the ROI from having the skilled translator.
Now that I have hit on some of the "bad" stuff with regard to what happens when employees can't read English, what about the positive aspects of the immigration issue? Positive aspects you say? Why of course, there is always a silver lining when you want to look for it. If we have an influx of people who don't speak our language, and we need to get people out there who can speak the foreign language, what do we have to do? Train them! How do we train them? We hire people, or buy books, DVDs, CDs, etc., or send employees to school to get them trained to be able to facilitate the communication process. Why is that such a good thing? Because it has created a new niche for those who are able to take advantage of their language skills and in America we are all about free enterprise. Just in government service for example, people have to be hired to identify ways to reach out to residents in order to educate them on basic rules for living in a specific jurisdiction. Translators are hired by the courts to help defendants and witnesses understand the judicial process. And people are available to police officers via the telephone to translate at scenes of crimes, traffic stops, or other emergencies to deal with immediate language barriers.
The issue of how to deal with employees who can't read, much less speak, English is so complicated because it impacts every aspect of our society. Everything from social interaction, multi-cultural bias, language/communication issues and fiscal considerations are on the table to be addressed. We as a nation have long ago gotten past the point of being able to say, "If they can't speak English, it's their problem not mine." It is here and we have to recognize the need to educate ourselves on the issues. It is also a very precious opportunity we have as a people. How can we not do what we can to welcome those who are here to make a better life for themselves? Most of us in this country who consider ourselves American wouldn't be here if someone in our ancestry didn't get on a boat and stand in line at Ellis Island so they could provide a better life for their family. This is a two way street though; the immigrant cannot just come here and expect to be taken care of. Nor can government ignore the issue and force immigrants to live in isolation. Both sides of this have to be willing to work together for the benefit of the society at large.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
