Post a Comment (1) | Trackbacks (0) | Permalink

By Kiki Georges

Everyone at one time or another has to deal with office politics. You know the person, the one who’s always brown-nosing the boss and then turning around and micromanaging everyone else because they want to throw their authority around.   Some people can just ignore this situation and take care of business. But others are pulled into the ‘political turmoil’ and wonder what the heck is going on.  Do people really need to constantly throw their authority around?  Do they think this makes them more powerful or are they fulfilling some grandiose fantasy they have? Some people tend to think that too much office politics actually can decrease productivity.   According to the Human Capital League, approximately 47% of people say that office politics can be distracting.  However, we still all have to get along and work towards accomplishing the company’s goals or mission.  The best thing to do is remain as professional as possible and show them the real reason why you were hired—your skill set, integrity, and ability to get the job done.   And try not to fall prey to the cat and mouse game of the office politico.

How have you learned to sidestep the drama of office politics in order to get your work done?  What advice can you share with those still struggling to get past it?

Post a Comment (0) | Trackbacks (0) | Permalink

By Sophia P. Nasher

At some point in your life, you have probably made a mistake. As a result, were you reprimanded and punished or were you applauded? Making mistakes is part of being human, and the workplace is no exception. Contrary to popular belief, mistakes do not hinder or determine workplace success and its return on investment. It is how a company deals with those mistakes that really matters.

A high level of disengagement can be a possible explanation for employee errors. According to Forbes Magazine, an astonishing 71 percent of employees are disengaged in their work. This number is not surprising, given the array of gadgets that keep individuals distracted. From the iPad to a popular game found on a phone application called Angry Birds,there are innumerable diversions for workers, but distracted workers consequently lead to angry bosses.

In return, two important steps should be taken. First, according to David Williams of Forbes Magazine, coaching and helping an employee learn and grow from an honest mistake is of utmost importance. Specifically, targeting each individual weakness translates into greater success for the company. If an individual’s problem is a behavioral one, then helping them shift their paradigm and view is essential.Second, companies should effectively employ techniques and tools to combat the high rate of disengagement. Some companies are attacking this problem by hiring professionals to increase workplace productivity and keep an innovative workforce. Many companies are hiring human capital experts to help keep the workplace engaged and productive. Similar to a company investing in its resources, including the latest electronics and tools, companies should invest in the most important aspect of the company, its people.

What approaches does your organization take when you have an employee who makes a mistake?

Post a Comment (0) | Trackbacks (0) | Permalink

By Meredith Camp

In my last blog, I touched on the roadblocks that exist in many organizations that prevent them from hiring people with great potential but less experience. Since then, a piece was written for Forbes on the good reasons to hire under qualified employees. In his blog the author, David K. Williams, talks about his organization’s open-minded approach to hiring talent. He and fellow Fishbowl executive Mary Michelle Scott developed their seven non-negotiables in hirable traits (Respect, Belief, Loyalty, Commitment, Trust, Courage, and Gratitude). I wholly agree with these as desirable characteristics to be found in any employee, new hire or 30-year veteran of the organization, but I wonder if the notion of hiring those with less experience would work quite as well in the government sector. After all, if the employer’s instinct is wrong (which Williams says is only 1% of the time), the employee can be let go in a private organization, while it is much more difficult to drop or even move an employee in the public space. So while rolling the dice might lead to positive results most of the time, there isn’t quite as much ability to gamble with hiring when using taxpayer money. But I do believe there is merit in looking for those traits in anyone you hire, especially because of what comes with those core characteristics. Here is my take on a brief pro/con list (aka: The Ben Franklin) for hiring the less experienced/high-potentials in the government sector.

PROS

• Unlimited growth potential for the employee
• If training is regularly incorporated into the organization, there is no end to what they can learn
• The hire can come up with innovative ways of doing things that can lead to major cost savings for the organization at large

CONS

• Red tape a bureaucracy limit change and innovation (and can squelch any creativity and drive the potential employee may have)
• New hires and lower-level employees may not get priority for training, even if they need it
• With all the cutbacks, government staff is getting spread thinner and thinner; if the employee is unable to perform their job duties, they are likely to get lost in the shuffle and not receive the support they need

Inevitably, the success of this higher risk hire depends largely on the leadership within the organization, especially in more traditional, top-down environments.  Leaders have the ability to either empower or stifle their employees, and it is usually evident which leader retains more of their staff. 

What other pros and cons are there for gambling on a low experience, high potential employee in the federal workforce?  What have you found to work or not work when hiring in your organization?

Post a Comment (0) | Trackbacks (0) | Permalink

By Meredith Camp

Last Friday, the Labor Department reported an increase in unemployment, which is now up to 8.2 percent in the U.S., a spike that hasn’t been seen since last June.  But while many will point to political reasons or the President for the lack of resolution to this ongoing problem, the real culprit is hardly that far up the chain of command.  According to the recent publication, Why Good People Can’t Get Jobs by Peter Cappelli, the root of the problem lies in the hands of the employers.  Employers often complain that there are few too qualified candidates, either with a lack of experience or proper education, but the truth is that there are several hiring roadblocks within their own organizations that are preventing them from attaining the right people for those unfilled positions.

Cappelli goes on to explain the key factors hindering the process: organizational unwillingness to pay fair market wages, human resource software weeding out too many good candidates, employer reluctance to offer on-the-job training, and organizational inability to see the financial losses accrued when positions remain unfilled.  And while these points a valid and valuable to note, I would venture to take the position one step further.

I propose that there is a direct connection between wage discrepancy and the lack of highly qualified candidate hiring.  When employers have high expectations for finding the “perfect” candidate for a job but aren’t willing to pay for that ideal employee, they end up not being able to fill the position because they won’t budge on salary and benefits and the more desirable candidates know their worth and won’t take a job that doesn’t meet their salary requirements.  So they are at an impasse.  Organizations need to broaden their scope a bit and either lower their requirements for the positions that remain unfilled and be open to training new hires that may lack the level of experience preferred, or they will need to raise the financial bar in order to become more competitive and subsequently attract and recruit those individuals who possess the qualifications they demand.  After all, you get what you pay for, right?

It seems so simple, so why are there still so many vacant positions out there?

Do you see these issues in your organization?  How are successful agencies and companies overcoming these obstacles?

Post a Comment (1) | Trackbacks (0) | Permalink

By Meredith Camp

BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) was recently listed among the concepts the White House’s digital government strategy is focusing on.  While teleworking was merely implied as part of this new movement in federal employment, the BYOD concept received a great deal of word space and even a deadline; by September of this year, all agencies must issue a BYOD plan that addresses how federal employees will be able to access their work and agency mobile applications from any device they may use.  

It is no secret that there has been more than a little resistance to this level of accessibility for federal employees.  Updating devices alone (no more Blackberry?) will cost the government a pretty penny.  But beyond the “how,” there is a legitimate concern with regard to security and privacy. But with the continued push towards more flexible work settings, agencies can no longer afford to lean on those obstacles as the only reasons not to allow employees to work remotely.  With the release of this latest digital government strategy, it is no longer a matter of “if,” but “when,” and that “when” is mere months away!  Approximately half of all federal agencies are already embracing some form of BYOD, so it is now a matter of bringing those capabilities to the rest.  But it is more than simply plugging in to the technological capability.  The culture of those lagging agencies must be changed in order to lift the stigma of teleworking and bring managers up to speed on the mobile capabilities and how to effectively manage employees remotely.

Has your agency begun the transition to BYOD?  What are some of the cultural obstacles facing this shift?

Post a Comment (1) | Trackbacks (0) | Permalink