Author: Site Staff

Dear Concerned:

I can tell you are worried about unintended consequences if executives do not address the issue of increasing workloads head-on. I am breaking your question into two parts to address each one individually.

First, can an employee be asked to take on tasks that are not specifically listed in the job description? To answer this it’s important to clarify the purpose of these documents. A job description is a tool that enumerates the key responsibilities for a job. It serves many different functions. It is initially used in recruiting to help candidates understand what is expected and what skills are needed to be successful. Once an individual is on board, the job description is often consulted to design employee training, establish salary ranges, set department goals and work with employees to address their performance. They are good tools and they are valuable for workforce structure; don’t throw them out.

On the other hand, a job description is not a task checklist for a particular individual. In fact, the best job descriptions I have seen contain a disclaimer of sorts. The document describes the work and then says something like “and other duties as may be necessary.” It’s impossible for someone to capture every aspect of a role in a job description. As you said, these are more fluid than static. It is therefore acceptable — in fact it’s quite common — for a manager to ask his or her direct reports to take on work not listed in a job description. This is especially true if the requests for additional work are occasional or intermittent. 

Second, as you point out, job description or no, there is a negative impact to the organization when employees constantly feel overwhelmed by their workload. The solutions are slightly different, depending on the root cause for this problem

Often employees tell me they feel afraid to discuss the impact of taking on additional work with their boss. Consequently, they say yes to everything, knowing there is no way that it can all get done effectively within reasonable time frames. I call this problem “commitment management.” There are ways to help employees and employers negotiate these requests effectively. Read “Who Will Do What by When” by Tom Hanson and Birgit Zacher Hanson; it explains a simple process that can be followed. 

Another possibility is that the employees don’t know how to prioritize the work, so they feel everything must be done immediately. I call this problem “priority management.” The solution to this is for employees to approach their bosses and ask them for help establishing an order for completion of tasks and a timeline. Most often, employees learn that there is more flexibility in the schedules than they thought.

Finally, many people have trouble managing their time and therefore are unable to complete the important work quickly. Hundreds of books have been written on this topic. One I like is called “Getting Things Done”by David Allen.

I think there are solutions to the concerns you raise. Hopefully this feedback gives you a framework for a productive conversation with the executives.

SOURCE: Ellen Raim, vice president of human resources, Cascade Microtech, Beaverton, Oregon, March 25, 2014

Dear Old Guard:

Sounds like a classic case of culture clash: You need to remedy two ills lingering from your past as you proceed to build a new IT team. First, I’d prescribe a healthy dose of change management. Unfortunately, the “old guard” IT professionals that you describe are frequently the least receptive to change. It’s certainly ironic given that tech is all about innovation, but the greatest resistance to change often emanates from seasoned IT professionals who dismiss new trends while clinging to legacy technologies. This makes your situation particularly challenging.

Your question also alludes to pretty significant issues related to your employment brand. A company teetering on the edge of closure twice in the past 10 years, with a 300 percent reduction in workforce, will likely not offer a very attractive employment alternative for the “new breed of IT people” you now want to hire. Your brand as an employer will also require some rehabilitation.

My prescription is for you to start afresh. You could embark on an extensive change management program with the old-guard IT leadership in place, but it will take a lot of time and is not guaranteed to work. 

Instead, go for a quicker cure which will accelerate change, albeit not without some initial pain. Hire a new CIO with the vision you want and the qualifications needed to rebuild from the top down. This person can bring a fresh perspective and might be better able to assess existing talent and who is likely to adapt to this changing environment. It also provides the much-needed infusion of new thinking needed to excite the new breed of employee you want to hire. A new person in that critical leadership role, with no history with your organization, stands a much better chance at developing an employee value proposition that fosters your new company’s burnished employment brand.

Initially, this approach may be a bitter pill for some of the old guard to swallow, but it also is the quickest way to get IT back on its feet.

SOURCE: J. James O’Malley, Partner, talentRISE, Chicago, March 25, 2014

Dear Not Getting Any Younger:

For the first time in U.S. history, four generations are working together side by side.  Many companies in the US have employees and managers in every age category from millennials (18-30+), Gen X (age 33-45+) and boomers (age 50-60+) to traditionalists (age 65-75+). The values, interests, skills, experiences and attitudes among these broadly diverse age groups create challenges for teams and managers. Internal competition, real or imagined, between younger workers building careers and older workers attempting to retain theirs is exacerbated by a tough economy in which “retirement” often is not financially feasible. With the explosion of medical, cosmetic and fitness resources, age truly is just a number, not necessarily an indicator of physical or mental impairments typically associated with aging.  Legally, age-discrimination complaints continue to be on the rise, along with disability charges often related to health issues. 

Boomers and traditionalists contribute proven expertise and decades of experience millennials and some Gen Xers don’t yet have. Companies have real concerns about the knowledge and leadership gaps they face with boomer and traditionalistturnover particularly where older workers hold positions of power, authority and strong customer relationships. 

Below are 10 actions to take or consider as you approach this important and challenging work.

·       Remove the age factor from your thinkingand any internal messages. Focus solely on the talent you need (knowledge, skills, experience) and performance criteria you require (competencies, behaviors, values) today and in the future. 

·       Refresh job descriptions and create performance profiles that include defined competencies and behaviors required for success… today.

·       Engage all employees and managers in“success planning” – creating work plans and development goals that support individual work-related interests and ambitions.

·       Engage managers and employees in supportive career discussions to understand the needs and motivations of older and younger workers at your company. Create transition strategies based on what you learn.  

·       Make succession planning a requirement for all managers, executives and key contributors. This process will identify your internal “bench strength” and will force discussions about sustainability and pro-active workforce planning. 

·       Introduce legacy-building, a concept that respects the contributions of long-term employees and engages creative thinking about what they leave behind.

·       Create affinity groups (employee resource groups) for all generational groups. Leverage the diverse perspectives of these groups for business objectives, particularly marketing and/or customer experience.

·       Identify roles for workers (any age) who may want to reduce their schedules and hours and still contribute.

·       Integrate collaboration and knowledge transfer as a fundamental requirement of every job, at every level.  

·       Develop internal mentoring and coaching rolesthat team older and younger workers in activities for knowledge sharing, collaboration and relationship building.

These actions will strengthen the engagement of all workers, provide insight for workforce strategies and may change the way you think about and value your “aging workforce”.

SOURCE:Patricia Duarte, founder and principal consultant, Decision Insight, Inc., Boston, Massachusetts, Dec. 16, 2013

Dear Time Sensitive,

A job rotation is a short- to medium-term job assignment with dual goals of getting important work done while developing an employee’s capabilities. The most common and impactful of all job rotations are “development rotations,” which in addition to the obvious development component can also have goals for increasing the exposure of for high-potential individuals. This helps you boost retention and better assessing their leadership or promotional capabilities.

Start by avoiding these common time-related development rotation errors

There are several common errors to avoid when setting the duration of an employee’s job rotation. They include:

·       Sticking to a fixed length for a rotation. A fixed time option may seem desirable because it makes business, succession and career planning easier. However, a fixed time can actually be a mistake because predicting in advance how long it will take an individual to complete their goals during the rotation is extremely difficult. As a result, the best approach is to start by setting “a range of time” for the rotation.

·       Having a rotation that is too short. If the job rotation is too short, all of the key learning and experience goals and objectives may not be met. Not allowing enough time to develop each skill may result in the organization inadvertently setting up this “under skilled” employee for failure in their next assignment.

·       Having a rotation that is too long. The firm risks frustrating the rotated employee if they begin to feel “abandoned” because nothing appears to be planned for them at the end of a long rotation.

·       Focusing on the time rather than the objectives – rather than dwelling on whether artificial time deadlines are met, a more strategic approach is to stay focused on whether the goals of the rotation are being met. Goal completion should be the primary determinant of when rotation should end.

There are action steps in the process for determining the appropriate length of a job rotation.Unfortunately, there is no universally recognized standard length for development rotations. However there are several steps that you should consider including in a rotation length determination process:

1.     Start with benchmark duration numbers – review recent rotation successes and failures to set minimum and maximum times for typical rotations. As a general rule, I have found that most development rotations at the same facility now last between six and 18 months.

2.     Realize that most rotations are now shorter – in a fast-moving world, most corporate development rotations are now “accelerated”: which means that while in the past a development job rotation could last up to three years, 18 months is now becoming more of a norm.

3.     Consider what will happen after the rotation – if the rotated employee is to be placed in another follow-up rotation or in a new permanent job, the times when that next placement can possibly start should influence the ending time of this rotation.

4.     Consult the employee – is critical that you give the rotated employee input into both the goals and the duration of the rotation. Before accepting a rotation, be aware that most employees will want to be made aware of the range of possible options that could happen to them after the rotation is completed.

5.     A bailout option is essential – in a complex business world, you should start by assuming that the initial rotation plan will probably need to be modified. Therefore the rotation plan should include a midpoint reassessment and an abandonment option if the rotation is not meeting its goals.

6.     Consider a flexible “avocado” time plan – if there is a lot of uncertainty involved in a particular rotation, a superior approach is to use “an avocado approach”. Under this hybrid approach, an initial fixed time period for the rotation (the hard nut) is set in concrete (usually 50 percent of the assumed needed length). But after that fixed component is nearing completion, the length of the remaining time period (the soft flesh) is negotiated between the parties, based on the results achieved so far.

 SOURCE: Dr. John Sullivan, San Francisco State University, December 16, 2013